Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Postal Services

Alan Reid: What recent discussions she has had with Postcomm regarding deregulation of postal services in Scotland.

Peter Duncan: If she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in Scotland.

Anne McGuire: The Scotland Office has regular contact with Postcomm and other organisations involved in matters connected with the operation of postal services in Scotland. Regulation of postal services is a matter for Postcomm.

Alan Reid: Quilters on the island of Islay found last month that their prices had been almost tripled by Parcelforce. Before that Parcelforce had an arrangement with the mail order company that the quilters deal with to the effect that Parcelforce delivered to any part of the country at a uniform rate. Parcelforce has withdrawn from that arrangement and is now charging almost double for deliveries to the highlands and islands compared with other parts of the country. Will the Minister step in now and stop that discrimination against the people of the highlands and islands by the Post Office and guarantee a universal service to all parts of the United Kingdom at a uniform price?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is a uniform delivery service for letters throughout the whole United Kingdom, but I note from the nodding on his side of the House—and, using the eyes in the back of my head, the nodding behind me—that there is an issue and I will take it up with Postcomm at our meeting next week.

Peter Duncan: The Minister should be aware that the former Under-Secretary in the Scotland Office, the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), confirmed to me on 7 December that reforms would not lead to any avoidable sub-post office closures. Will the hon. Lady confirm exactly what "avoidable" means? My constituent, Mrs. Cronie, who runs the sub-post office on the Isle of Whithorn, tells me that she has no idea
	"what to expect come 2003 when the pension book disappears".
	Is that not avoidable? Does it not show that the current chaos is an entirely avoidable Government policy failure?

Anne McGuire: As I said last month in reply to another question from the hon. Gentleman, he should stop scaremongering about some of the things that are happening. He is well aware that the Government have supported the rural post office network and that Postcomm is working closely with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. If he wants to talk about the postal service in his area, perhaps he would like to use in his news release this week the information that the figure for first-class deliveries in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is one of the highest recorded—94.9 per cent; and that second-class deliveries are 93.3 per cent. That is good news about the Post Office—perhaps he would like to start telling it.

Tony Worthington: The Minister will be aware that the finances of the Post Office are very, very serious indeed and that unless there are significant reforms to the urban post office network, we shall hear a great deal of protest. Great ideas were proposed in the report of the performance and innovation unit, but they are only coming out sluggishly: talking about pilots in Rutland does not convey the urgency of the need to change post offices. Will my hon. Friend assure me that all her energy will go into speeding up the rate of reform of urban post offices?

Anne McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is well aware that there are ongoing discussions about the urban network. He should not be so dismissive about the roll-out of the pilot schemes in Rutland and Leicestershire. The schemes have to be evaluated but, as I have already pointed out, I will meet Postcomm in the next week or so, and I shall certainly raise his concerns.

Brian H Donohoe: When my hon. Friend meets the regulator, will she have something to say about the number of closures that have already taken place in the postal service—one of which was in my constituency and has adversely affected mail deliveries in Ayrshire as a whole? Will she bring some common sense to the situation and tell the regulator that competition in the postal service is not welcome?

Anne McGuire: I hear what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he will give me exact details about his question after Question Time and I shall certainly take the matter up as part of my wider discussions with Postcomm in the next few days.

Michael Weir: In the Minister's original answer, she again referred to the universal service obligation. Will she explain how the Government intend to guarantee that obligation to rural and remote areas of Scotland, given that the Postcomm proposal will inevitably lead to the cherry-picking of profitable urban services?

Anne McGuire: Of course I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House reassurance about the way that the universal service obligation will be protected, because it is enshrined in primary legislation in the Postal Services Act 2000.

Future of Europe

Rosemary McKenna: What steps she is taking to ensure that Scottish women's views are fully represented in the debate on the future of Europe.

Irene Adams: What steps she is taking to represent Scottish interests in connection with the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Helen Liddell: The Government wish to encourage a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in advance of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. I will continue to contribute to that debate, as I have been doing. My Department is working with the European Commission office in Scotland on planning a conference on women and the changing European Union. I will also shortly discuss the subject of women and the EU with editors of the women's media, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe.

Rosemary McKenna: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I congratulate her on her efforts to involve all civic Scotland—and women, in particular—in the debate on the future of Europe. Does she agree that Scotland has much to gain from a more transparent and efficient Europe?

Helen Liddell: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. This is a key time for crafting the future of Europe for the next decade and beyond. Everyone's positive involvement is to be welcomed. I pay particular tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played, not least because of her involvement in Europe before she came to this place.
	My hon. Friend is right. Women need to become involved in the debate. Dare I say it, as the head of an all-female Department, the macho posturing that surrounds the debate on Europe often puts many women off.

Irene Adams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving an all-women Front Bench. In fact, I know that we will have made gains when people comment on all-men Front Benches.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland and the Scottish economy have much to gain from enlargement of the European Union? Does she further agree that an enlarged EU will deliver most for all the peoples of Europe when the future of Europe debate produces greater accountability in Brussels?

Helen Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations, although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) is looking a little shamefaced in his place as a Whip.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) makes an important point of great significance to Scottish business. EU enlargement will mean that the Union will go from 300 million to 500 million consumers. That will offer great opportunities, but present great challenges. I encourage everyone, particularly those in the small business community, to look to the opportunities that enlargement can bring and to prepare for it. The benefits will be great for businesses, but the challenges are significant.

Angus Robertson: On the future of Europe, is the Secretary of State aware of the apparent efforts by the Scottish Executive to seek more independent influence for Scotland, as reported in The Scotsman yesterday? Can she give the House details of how independent that representation will be, assuming that Scotland does not have the full status of a normal member state? Is she concerned that the report of the Scottish Executive's initiative was described as not even second-rate spin by the Minister for Europe in this morning's Westminster Hall debate?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Gentleman's questions are as predictable as the appearance of a streaker at Wimbledon, and they have exactly the same purpose.
	The First Minister is very much involved in the debate on the future of Europe. Indeed, he is taking a leading role. However, he of all people knows that Scotland benefits much more from being part of the United Kingdom's representation in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman looked around, he would see that we are not just well represented by the Scottish Executive in Europe, but that a considerable number of the UK Ministers who represent us in Europe are Scottish.

Jacqui Lait: Will the conference of women in Scotland report to her or to the First Minister?

Helen Liddell: It will report to the European Commission, which is the organiser.

Jacqui Lait: I assume that it is the conference that the Secretary of State announced on 9 May that she—and not the European Union—was organising. Was she involved in the discussions between Jack McConnell and the Foreign Secretary on Scotland's voice in Europe? Why was this women's forum set up if she was not involved in the issue? Was she cut out of the loop altogether? What does it say for the future of women politicians in Scotland if Scotland Office Ministers were not involved in the discussions? [Interruption.]

Helen Liddell: A killer question indeed.
	The First Minister, myself and Foreign Secretary take part in the debate on the future of Europe, because we recognise that it is a serious debate. We are united, and that is the big difference between us and the Opposition, who seem unable to agree on anything to do with Europe—whether it involves women, men or whatever.

Michael Connarty: Unlike those on the Opposition Front Bench, my right hon. Friend obviously understands Scottish politics, so will she accept that, in the convention, the question of privileged access remains to be discussed between the Scottish Executive, their civil servants and the Commission? Will she assure us that she will do whatever she can to make sure that the partnership—on which our relations with Scotland and Europe is based—will be strengthened? Will she do everything in her power to ensure that no dissatisfaction is felt by Members of the Scottish Parliament about the relationship with Europe?

Helen Liddell: I contacted the Deputy First Minister, who is the Minister for Europe in the Scottish Executive, and asked whether he is confident that he and his officials are getting the exchange of information that they require to process policy on Europe. He tells me that he is, but I am anxious to ensure that the very sound and stable arrangements that we have made on the joint ministerial committee on Europe are enhanced. There is little doubt among politicians who have some say in the governance of Scotland that our involvement in the European Union is significant for Scotland's future prosperity.

Common Agricultural Policy

Jonathan Djanogly: If she will make a statement on the impact on the Scottish economy of the common agricultural policy in the last 12 months.

Helen Liddell: Agricultural policy in Scotland is a devolved matter, which rests with the Scottish Executive. Farmers in Scotland receive about £450 million a year in direct subsidy payments from schemes based on the common agricultural policy.

Jonathan Djanogly: It is hardly controversial to say that the common agricultural policy is failing the British people as a whole. It hinders job creation in rural communities and the development of rural society. It makes food more expensive and works against the interests of farmers and consumers. But when the Government went to Berlin they failed to deliver on CAP reform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will stand up for Scottish and British farmers rather than the CAP?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Gentleman has got a brass neck. Anyone who supported a Government who for 18 years ducked the issue of the common agricultural policy has a cheek lecturing this Government. We began the process of CAP policy reform with Agenda 2000, and we will continue it in submissions in response to statements from the Commission that we anticipate will be made tomorrow. The CAP needs to be reformed and the Government are determined to see that it is. It is important to recognise the quality of Scottish agriculture rather than the quantity issues that dominated the debate when the Conservatives were in power.

Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the impact of the CAP on families in my constituency has been overwhelmingly negative because it has kept food prices at least £20 a week higher than they otherwise would have been? It has also been bad for farmers because it has created a generation of them who are welfare dependent.

Helen Liddell: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.

John Thurso: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep disappointment felt by many Scottish farmers last year at the failure of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pursue agrimonetary compensation despite the repeated entreaties of the Scottish Executive rural affairs Minister? Will she ensure that in the negotiations likely to be consequent on Commissioner Fischler's interim report, the representations made by the Scottish Executive rural affairs Minister will not be treated in such a cavalier fashion?

Helen Liddell: It is as well that the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat Member because people in permanent opposition do not have to make choices. Agrimonetary compensation involves choices because it comes at a cost. The Government and the Scottish Executive go to great lengths to ensure that the voice of the rural affairs Minister is heard within our counsels. The hon. Gentleman should be proud of that because otherwise he is suggesting that his colleague, Mr. Ross Finnie, is not making his case effectively enough.

Greg Knight: We welcome the right hon. Lady's admission that the common agricultural policy needs to be reformed. Is she prepared to go further and agree with the Edinburgh Evening News that
	"The Common Agricultural Policy is a fraud that makes Enron look like peanuts"?
	Although there is clearly a case for reform, is not it essential that if plans go ahead for a 5 per cent. or so cut in cereal prices, safeguards need to be in place to prevent honest vulnerable farmers in the United Kingdom, in particular in Scotland and the north of England, from going out of business? Will she suggest to the Prime Minister that, in the negotiations that lie ahead, instead of trying to court popularity on the world stage, he for once stands up for Britain, our rural way of life and the Scottish farmer?

Helen Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman is not being predictable today. He usually asks me about business regulation. I wonder whether Enron, Tyco and WorldCom have convinced him of the value of regulation.
	The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek. My party argued for CAP reform for 18 years, but the Government he supported did nothing about it. This Government are committed to change that is in the interests of consumers as well as farmers.

Scottish Regiments

Patrick Mercer: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the future of Scottish regiments.

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on a wide range of defence matters. The Scottish regiments have an important continuing role in the United Kingdom's defence plans.

Patrick Mercer: I find it hard to be reassured by the Minister. With a new chapter of the strategic defence review about to be announced, it is interesting to note that the worst-recruited regiment in the Royal Armoured Corps is the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Britain's oldest regiment of infantry, the 1st Regiment of Foot, the Royal Scots, already has 100 Fijians serving in its ranks. The 42nd Regiment of Foot, the Black Watch, is constantly under threat—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go through all the Scottish regiments.

Anne McGuire: Speaking of having a cheek, the last regiment to lose its proud name was the Gordon Highlanders, and that was disbanded in 1994 under the previous Conservative Government.
	I take this opportunity to pay special tribute to 45 Commando Royal Marines, based in Arbroath, who have just returned from Afghanistan. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when I was talking to Brigadier General Robert Gordon last week, he stated that the armed forces are putting all their resources into recruitment and that the figures are comfortable enough at the moment, given an economic situation in which people have other choices. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can say that it is not true if he wants, but I assure him that the Scottish regiments are putting a great deal of energy and commitment into recruitment and retention of forces.

Eric Joyce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing for our armed forces, to which we give the greatest challenges in this uncertain world, is operational effectiveness? Does she agree that those who would split Scotland from the UK risk that effectiveness in the gravest of ways?

Anne McGuire: I certainly would not like to compete with my hon. Friend on issues of defence. He is correct, and the Scottish National party's catastrophic policies on the United Kingdom would not only mean a diminution in our defence capability but impact economically on tens of thousands of jobs across Scotland.

David Burnside: When the Minister is defending Scottish regiments in discussions with the Ministry of Defence—I shall not list all the Irish regiments, Mr. Speaker—will she try mention the end of the royal tournament, which was once a great platform for promoting the excellence of all three sections of our armed forces? Will she ask the MOD to stop penny- pinching and bring back the public sector money to promote the royal tournament at Olympia once again?

Anne McGuire: I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about the royal tournament, but if he is at a loose end in August and early September, the tattoo in Edinburgh is a good substitute.

Pyramid Schemes

John Lyons: If she will take steps to stop (a) the women empowering women scheme and (b) other pyramid selling.

Helen Liddell: The women empowering women scheme, for those who do not know about it, is a cruel con, no better than a chain letter. As soon as the chain is broken, women lose money. The arithmetic of the scheme simply does not add up, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on the matter because publicity is the best way to protect women from the scheme. The Government are looking at other ways to protect those who get involved in this totally reprehensible means of pyramid selling.

John Lyons: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. Will she initiate immediate discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on how best we can combat schemes such as women empowering women, or as she has properly called it, women conning women? These get-rich-quick schemes are driving people into the arms of loan sharks all over Scotland, and I congratulate the Daily Record on its stance on the issue. It is important that we make it very clear that loan sharks only bring fear, despair and intimidation into our communities.

Helen Liddell: I could not have put it better myself—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. To call such people loan sharks is to insult sharks. They are vermin who prey on the most vulnerable in our communities. The DTI is already looking into a review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is examining women empowering women. It is a clever scheme: it is not technically pyramid selling because there is no product involved, but that does not mean that women do not lose substantial sums. Those who think it a laughing matter should come to some of Scotland's poorer communities and see what those people are doing.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Ministerial Visits

Michael Moore: What the purpose was of her recent official visit to Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.

Lynda Clark: The purpose of the visit was to demonstrate the UK Government's continuing interest and involvement in the borders area by meeting local people involved in important borders industries such as tourism and the vibrant cashmere industry. I also accepted an invitation to attend the end of year show at Heriot-Watt university's school of textile and design in Galashiels.
	In my legal advisory role, I am responsible for advising on both devolved and reserved aspects of Scots law, and it is important that I have regard to the practical implications of the devolution settlement.
	The visit also enabled me to visit Abbotsford house, the home of one of Scotland's best known lawyers, Sir Walter Scott. That beautiful house is of interest to many of the international lawyers I meet.

Michael Moore: I commend the Advocate-General for visiting the borders. Her visit was well received, not least because of her support for the cashmere industry and her attendance at the Heriot-Watt fashion show. In the past three years, it has sometimes been hard to pin down the hon. and learned Lady on her roles and responsibilities. Does her visit mean that we have trouble in the courts in the borders, or may we now table questions to her on employment, tourism and the fashion industry?

Lynda Clark: I have no trouble pinning down my role. The hon. Gentleman might get a better idea of it if he read my article in The Scots Law Times a few weeks ago. I am pleased that he acknowledges the fact that I, as a member of the UK Government and a Scotland Office Minister, was interested enough to come to his constituency. I have every intention of returning there if I am invited again, and I hope that he will come with me next time.

Devolution

Tom Harris: How many devolution issues she has dealt with in the last month.

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 11 June under the Scotland Act 1998.

John Robertson: How many devolution issues she has been involved in, in the last month.

Lynda Clark: In the past month, 23 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. All but two concerned article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to a fair trial. The remaining two cases concerned, respectively, the right to education and a question of European Community law.

Tom Harris: Following the recent legal action by the Scottish Countryside Alliance to prevent the abolition of fox hunting in Scotland, does my hon. and learned Friend believe that it is an appropriate use of her time and of public money to defend in court legislation produced by the Scottish Parliament? Does she agree that the fox hunting lobby in Scotland is using the Scottish legal system to play politics?

Lynda Clark: The case to which my hon. Friend refers is an important one, but it is at first instance—before a single judge. I have told the House on several occasions that my policy is usually not to intervene except in the higher courts, especially the Privy Council, where significant issues of principle may be decided. I intervene in the UK interest after consultation with UK Departments to ensure that their interests are taken into account.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point. Any citizen or pressure group can challenge actions in the courts; that is why we have a democracy and courts. However, that does not mean that I, as Advocate-General, have to deal with those challenges. There are other interested parties, such as those who passed the legislation.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Advocate-General explain how she and the Lord Advocate came to give conflicting advice in the recent human rights and hunting case? Do they ever have occasion to meet, so that they give harmonious advice in future?

Lynda Clark: Of course we meet and we sometimes discuss the legal issues involved. One reason why we have an Advocate-General as a separate Law Officer at UK level is so that he or she can consider interests that may not have been raised by other parties. As the Scottish Parliament is being challenged by the pressure group that was mentioned earlier over the introduction of unacceptable legislation, it is not inappropriate that an interested party—me—should raise in court the issue of whether the body representing the interests of the Scottish Parliament could be heard as a party. One of my roles is to make points that other parties have not considered to obtain clarification of the law.

John Robertson: If the Advocate-General intervened in all devolution cases, what would the costs be to the taxpayer? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that that would be a waste of public money?

Lynda Clark: It will not take hon. Members long to work out that 1,500 cases multiplied by lawyers' days in court is a great deal of public money. I agree that that is not a good use of public money, bearing in mind the fact that many of the cases are heard in the lower criminal courts where, even if I succeeded in resolving the issue successfully, there would be no likelihood of obtaining awards to cover expenses. There are therefore many circumstances in which I would not regard it as appropriate to intervene in the first instance, but as I have repeatedly said, I look at each individual case as it comes to me. I also look at cases as they proceed through the courts and up to the Privy Council, if that is where they go.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

House of Lords Judicial Committee

John Burnett: What plans he has to propose reforms to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

Rosie Winterton: The Government have no plans to propose reforms to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

John Burnett: Many will be disappointed by the Minister's indifference. The Government should lead, not just react. The weight of case law and opinion in recent years has been to seek a total separation of the judiciary from the Executive and legislative authorities. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the admirable speech made by Lord Bingham of Cornhill to the Constitution Unit on 1 May 2002, in which he said:
	"But if the House of Lords is to be reformed, and even if it is not, the opportunity should be taken to reflect in institutional terms what is undoubtedly true in functional terms, that the law lords are judges not legislators and do not belong in a House to whose business they can make no more than a slight contribution." Does the Minister agree with the senior Law Lord?

Rosie Winterton: Obviously, the Government listen carefully to the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Law Lords hold a number of different views about the issue. That was certainly reflected in the evidence to the Wakeham commission which, as he will know, recommended the retention of the Law Lords in the House of Lords. The Government are not convinced that there is a case for changing those arrangements, but if the proposed Joint Committee on parliamentary reform makes such proposals, the Government will consider them.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend has just answered my question, so perhaps I can refine it. She assured the House that the Government will consider any recommendation that the Joint Committee may make. With how much energy will they consider it? The history of reform of the House of Lords is scattered with examples of people saying that they will consider something, then doing nothing. Can we have an assurance that if the Joint Committee makes a strong recommendation, that will be considered seriously and action proposed?

Rosie Winterton: I certainly would not like to predict future energy levels, but I reiterate that the Government are not convinced, in any sense of the word, that there is a sufficient case for change. I repeat that the Joint Committee can make proposals, which will certainly be considered.

Rural Justice

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet members of the lay magistracy to discuss the administration of justice in rural areas.

Yvette Cooper: Magistrates courts committees are expected to recognise the needs of rural users in the delivery of their services, as set out in the rural White Paper. Officials and I continue to have meetings with various representatives of the lay magistracy. Although there are no particular plans to discuss rural issues, I am, of course, happy to do so, should concerns be raised.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Tony Martin is a constituent of mine? Is she also aware that the lay magistracy was obviously closely involved in the case during the early stages? Is she aware that one of the burglars who broke into Tony Martin's house is suing him for damages that he suffered as a result of his criminality, and that in spite of his law firm offering a contingency no win-no fee basis, he is getting legal aid to take the case to court? Should not the rules be changed so that a person cannot get legal aid when a solicitor works on a contingency no win-no fee basis?

Yvette Cooper: The rules on legal aid have been clearly established to ensure that they provide for those who do not have the means to take their cases through court. Those principles are important and we must respect them. It would not be right for Ministers to take decisions on individual cases of allocation of legal aid. It is right that we have proper criteria for such decisions to be made, and we should respect those.

David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association and of the supplemental list of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch Bench in Leicestershire, I can tell the Minister that conversations with colleagues suggest a deep unease about the medium-term future of rural magistrates courts in the light of various pronouncements by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. Can she give them some reassurance that the continuing loss of power and the pressure for more remote and large-scale centralised courthouses will be stopped in their tracks, and that there is indeed a future for the rural courthouse, which does not seem clear at present? Are my colleagues right to be pessimistic?

Yvette Cooper: It is important that decisions about courthouses and the provision of services at the local level be taken as far as possible at the local level, by the people who have the experience and the knowledge of local circumstances. That should continue. It is part of the current system that it is a matter for magistrates courts committees in the first instance to make decisions about court venues and where services should be provided. We need to retain such local decision making. It is also important that rural decisions are taken into account. We have reflected on the proposals in the rural White Paper and magistrates courts committees are expected to use the rural proofing check list set out by the Countryside Agency.

David Heath: The Minister's support for the concept of local justice in rural areas is widely welcomed, but local courts are closing on an almost weekly and monthly basis, not least in my own town, Frome. There are proposals to close the court in Frome, which means that people will have to travel anything up to 30 or 35 miles to their nearest local court. The usual response from the Lord Chancellor's Department is that this is purely a matter for local magistrates courts committees, but I do not believe that every magistrates courts committee in the country is engaged in a conspiracy to close local rural courthouses. Will the Minister give new guidance to magistrates courts committees to make sure that we have local courthouses providing a service to local rural communities?

Yvette Cooper: Magistrates courts committees have been given clear guidance, particularly about the need to take account of the requirements of rural areas. It is the magistrates courts committees' responsibility to decide on the use of courthouses for magistrates services in their area. It is important that those decisions should be taken at the local level. We should consider what further partnership arrangements can be put in place to ensure better working between, for example, magistrates courts, the civil and family courts and the Crown court to promote access to justice in the local area.
	For example, the proposals on the civil and family courts will involve the opening of 37 new venues in areas that do not currently have civil and family court services, such as Selby in North Yorkshire and the Isles of Scilly. That means an increase in access for people in those areas. We take that very seriously in the Department.

Simon Thomas: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned civil courts. Will she tell my constituents whether she would be prepared to travel 80 miles to discuss her civil court case?

Yvette Cooper: Obviously, I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Certainly, the proposals that have been set out as part of the civil and family courts modernisation programme are intended to increase the number of local hearings that are taking place. It is important that we do that, but we must also recognise that the decisions that are taken must take into account a series of other issues, including, for example, the need to ensure the availability of appropriate facilities and access for disabled users. I am very happy to look into the individual case that he mentioned, but I think that the record of the Government's recent proposals shows that they have been about increasing access to civil and family hearings, rather than the reverse.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that her trying to sound reasonable does not necessarily mean that she is being reasonable in putting across her arguments? Does she agree that there is increasing evidence that the 28,000 unpaid members of the lay magistracy, including many in rural areas, are in a deepening crisis and are getting angry? There is a vast number of unpaid fines and court closures and mergers are on the agenda, rather than the meting out of justice. As one resigning JP said yesterday in the press:
	"I am going because I am disillusioned with the system . . . I have been presiding over the collection of debts like a car park attendant."
	With crime shooting up and criminals getting away scot free in magistrates courts, what does the Minister propose to do about that?

Yvette Cooper: I do not agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Lay magistrates play a vital role in the justice process in this country and are an extremely valued part of that process. There are indeed wide variations in issues such as fine enforcement that need to be addressed and we will shortly set out measures to take that further.
	I warn the hon. Gentleman against trying to make party political points about issues such as court closures. In 1996, the last year of the previous Administration, 20 magistrates courts closed and many of them were situated in rural areas. Courts were closed in places such as Llangollen, Thirsk, Ingleton, Easingwold, Howden, Market Weighton and so on; we could go on. These are important issues that need to be decided locally, but I warn him against trying to make inappropriate party political points about the matter.

Information Technology

Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the development of IT systems within his Department.

Yvette Cooper: Current IT systems in the courts are limited in scope and in their ability to communicate with other parts of the justice system. That is why the Department has started a major programme of IT modernisation, beginning with providing IT infrastructure and networks for court users and developing online services for the public and pilot programmes in new technology.

Norman Lamb: May I ask the Minister about the Libra project? Back in May, there were reports that the whole project was to be abandoned at a vast cost to the public purse. It was supposed to be a vital part of the Government's modernisation process for the courts. Will the Minister tell us what the current situation is with regard to the project and ensure that matters proceed quickly, as court staff are getting frustrated by the endless delays?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. There are two parts to the Libra project. The first part—providing the modern infrastructure and computer equipment for magistrates courts—is 75 per cent. complete and the remainder will be completed by early next year. The second phase is the new standard software application, which was not delivered by the supplier when planned. We are in negotiations with the Libra supplier, Fujitsu Services, to resolve the situation, and I will inform the House of the outcome of those negotiations as soon as they are complete. I take on board the point that has been raised.

Andrew Miller: May I commend to the House last night's meeting of PITCOM, the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, in which three senior police officers spoke to hon. Members about IT issues in the criminal justice system? It was a very worthwhile event. One comment made to me behind the scenes was about how much progress had been made in the criminal justice IT system. I congratulate the Department on that, but will my hon. Friend ensure that in all future procurement, work is done closely with the customers—the people who do the work at the sharp end—to ensure that procurement meets their needs?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that procurement needs to be undertaken in close co-operation with the customer. In the criminal justice system, that means not only the particular customer who will be using the system, but the other criminal justice agencies that they may need to communicate with. We have to ensure that systems are compatible and work well in communicating between the various agencies.

Knutsford Crown Court

George Osborne: When he will announce his decision on the proposed closure of Knutsford crown court.

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the public consultation on the possible closure of the crown court at Knutsford ended on 31 May. The group manager responsible for the court is considering whether a formal case for closure should be presented to the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the group manager expects to complete his considerations over the summer.

George Osborne: I thank the Minister for that answer. She will be aware of the enormous opposition to the closure from local people, local law professionals and local Members of Parliament of all parties. Through an Adjournment debate and a petition, I was making great progress with the Minister's predecessor, but then he was moved—or sacked, depending on how one interprets the newspaper reports of what happened to him—so I have to start all over again. Will she at least approach the matter with an open mind and consider the arguments, not just go along with the Department's initial proposals?

Yvette Cooper: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet him and other hon. Members from the local area to hear their views. I have not yet received official advice or recommendations on the future of Knutsford crown court. I shall certainly meet the hon. Gentleman before the summer recess to discuss it.

PRIVY COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Reception Arrangements

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on arrangements for receiving members of the public at the House.

Ben Bradshaw: Improvements to arrangements for receiving the public at Parliament have already been made, and more are planned. A feasibility study is shortly to make recommendations on a new visitor centre for the public.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree although the prime determinant of the public's perception of our parliamentary democracy may be what we do in this Chamber and how we do it, arrangements for the reception of visitors are an important element? Does he accept that we have not done as well as we might have done in the past as regards queueing arrangements, line of route tours, refreshment facilities, and so on? Does he recognise that my constituents have a round trip of more than 400 miles to come here, so we need to get those arrangements spot-on?
	Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that although the steps that have been taken so far are very welcome, as is the feasibility study that he mentioned, there is a lot more to be done? Will he assure me that those matters will be moved forward and kept constantly under review?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I should like to offer my hon. Friend that assurance. Every hon. Member has had similar experiences with constituents who come to this building, which was not designed as a building for a modern, functioning Parliament. That affects not only us, but members of the public, who nowadays expect it to be accessible. Improvements have been made, including the new screens and new reception desk in Central Lobby, screens at St. Stephen's entrance—which should help with new guiding arrangements—and the new Jubilee café. From the point of view of visitors who have to wait outside in our monsoon summer weather, the feasibility study's recommendations on a visitor centre will make a great deal of difference.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister agree that extra morning sittings will hardly make the place more accessible?

Ben Bradshaw: Not necessarily, but if any suggestions regarding extra morning sittings were to be made, one of the matters that would have to be taken into account is the impact that they would have on the public accessibility of this place. However, other Parliaments sit in the morning and manage to be much more accessible than we are.

Modernisation

Julie Morgan: What plans he has to propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that there should be time limits on speeches in all debates in the House.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend will make further suggestions to the Modernisation Committee on time limits for speeches. In his earlier memorandum, he suggested that there could be advantages if debates were shorter in length but greater in number. That would imply shorter speeches.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that 10 minutes is perfectly adequate for hon. Members to make all the points that they wish? A general 10-minute time limit would give more hon. Members the opportunity to take part and thus end the frustration of sitting in the Chamber for many hours without being able to contribute except through interventions. Will he look into that?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. That is an excellent point. You already have discretion, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Orders to set a time limit for speeches. As a radio journalist, I was taught that one should be able to make one's point in 40 seconds. I am not expecting hon. Members to be able to do that, but I hope that they can be much briefer.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister consider introducing proposals to ensure a reduction in prolixity in questions and replies during Question Time and statements?

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must forgive my ignorance. I assume that the question dealt with the length of questions and answers. If so, I agree with him. Questions and answers as well as speeches are invariably far too long.

Scrutiny

Howard Stoate: What plans he has to present proposals to improve scrutiny of Government legislation.

Kevin Brennan: What plans he has to ensure that more Bills in the next session are subject to pre–legislative scrutiny.

Robin Cook: I set out my proposals for better scrutiny of legislation in my memorandum on modernisation, which is currently being studied in the Modernisation Committee. A key proposal is that, over a period of time, publication in draft should become the norm rather than the exception for Bills, thus enabling more to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny. It would be possible to arrange for longer and more thorough scrutiny of each Bill if the House agreed to carry over measures into subsequent Sessions.

Howard Stoate: I found serving on the Pre-legislative Committee for the Food Standards Bill rewarding and that I was more in touch with the programme for the measure. The Committee was able to improve the Bill before the House considered it and we therefore debated better legislation. Will my right hon. Friend use his best efforts to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible can take part in pre-legislative scrutiny and thus secure the widest possible representation?

Robin Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny is that it ensures that several problems are snagged out before the Bill comes before the House and that the relevant Department has a fair and accurate idea of hon. Members' views.
	Pre-legislative scrutiny is first a matter for the relevant Select Committee. It is a great advantage that hon. Members who are most expert on a topic examine the draft Bills. However, that requires the Select Committees to accept pre-legislative scrutiny as an obligation to which they should give priority. From time to time, we can consider other methods of pre-legislative scrutiny, for example, through a Joint Committee, which is currently considering the Office of Communications Bill.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) and the hon. Member for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) served on the Special Standing Committee that considered the Adoption and Children Bill. We all accepted that it was useful to be able to take evidence before considering a Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that procedure should be applied to all major Bills? Does not it have the advantage over Select Committees of ensuring that the latter maintain their independence when considering departmental matters?

Robin Cook: I am not sure that I accept that a tension or conflict exists between the two methods of proceeding. I do not understand why a Select Committee should not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny and, when appropriate, we should not provide for a Standing Committee to call evidence. I agree with my hon. Friend that a Special Standing Committee has advantages. I regret that we have been able use that method for only one Bill—the Adoption and Children Bill—in the Session. I should like more Standing Committees to have the freedom to call witnesses if they choose. The speed at which we are required to get Bills through the House to fit the current sessional straitjacket stands in the way of that. If Bills could be carried over from one Session to the next, we could have more Special Standing Committees.

Alan Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, even with pre- legislative scrutiny, many clauses and Government amendments pass into law without debate because they fall victim to programme motions or the House's failure to manage the business properly? Does he agree that a strong business committee with some independence of Government should be in a position to manage business and to ensure adequate time for proper discussion?

Robin Cook: I fully accept that there should be adequate time both in Committee and on Report for hon. Members to focus on the main provisions of a Bill. That does not necessarily mean that we have to spend an equal amount of time on every clause, which is why it is helpful to have programme motions that ensure that there is a considered view on where the priority areas of debate within a Bill should be. As I have said, I would welcome a situation in which we could provide for more time for Bills to be considered, but to do that, I need a longer time perspective. That is where the carrying over of Bills could be not only of value to the business management of the House but of real benefit to Members carrying out their job of scrutiny.

Greg Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that, in any reforms to improve scrutiny, he will use the Oxford dictionary definition of the word—"a critical, close investigation"—and that he will not base any reform plans on what appears to drive most new Labour Members, namely a desire for short debate, shorter speeches, early nights, long weekends, deferred voting and a further curtailment of opposition rights?

Robin Cook: rose—

Greg Knight: I have not finished. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when my party was in power, all the reforms that we implemented under the Jopling proposals were introduced by consent, following usual channels agreement between the Government and the official Opposition? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will do the same?

Robin Cook: I seem to remember from my many years in opposition frequent occasions on which I turned up in the House to vote against guillotines on which there had been no consultation, and certainly no consensus between us and the Conservatives, who were then insisting on ramming through their legislation, including a number of Bills—such as the one that introduced the poll tax—which they lived to regret.
	Through the Modernisation Committee, we are introducing a balanced package that will provide for improved scrutiny rights for the House, and will not just be about making life easier for Members of Parliament. Indeed, the purpose of modernisation is not to make life easier, but to enable Members of Parliament to do their job more effectively. Personally, I think that that might well involve starting the day in Parliament at an earlier hour and making sure that we return to this place in September. I hope that I will get the right hon. Gentleman's support for that.

Meg Munn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to taking evidence from experts in the pre-legislative scrutiny process, there is a lot to be said for taking evidence from practitioners who have experience of the issue being discussed, and who will ultimately be implementing the law? Does he agree that such consultation could result in our being less likely to make laws that are difficult to implement?

Robin Cook: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Proceeding by pre-legislative scrutiny, or by Special Standing Committee—or, indeed, both—gives those outside the House the opportunity to comment. It is important for us to remember that pre-legislative scrutiny is a matter not only for MPs but for the wider civic community and for all those involved in the topic under consideration. If we can ensure that that process works satisfactorily, we might have fewer errors on the statute book of the kind of which there were many during the 18 years of Conservative Government.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission was asked—

Air Travel

Anthony Steen: If he will make a statement on arrangements made between the Transport Office and the House of Commons Commission in relation to the purchase price of airline tickets.

Archy Kirkwood: The Travel Office is contractually obliged to offer its customers advice on best fare availability. To maximise value for money to the House, there is an agreement between the House and British Airways on special fares booked through the Travel Office for group travel on official business. Following the withdrawal of agency commissions by British Airways, however, a modest transaction charge has been levied on British Airways tickets purchased from the Travel Office to avoid subsidising private travel from public funds.

Anthony Steen: Is the House aware that, every time anybody buys such a ticket from the Travel Office, they pay a 5 per cent. surcharge? If a Member is travelling on official or parliamentary business, that 5 per cent. surcharge is paid for by the taxpayer. On purchases from any airline other than British Airways, the travel agent's commission is paid for out of the ticket price, but British Airways levies a surcharge.
	Why should the taxpayer pay that surcharge because the House flies British Airways? I am a great supporter of British Airways, as we all are, but why should the taxpayer pay that extra 5 per cent? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until that surcharge is lifted, we should fly with any airline other than British Airways, because it is cheaper for the taxpayer?

Archy Kirkwood: The Travel Office is there for the convenience of the House. It is there predominantly so that Members—including members of Select Committees—and Officers of the House can travel on official visits using public funds. Because of the way the Travel Office is financed, however, if the 5 per cent. transaction charge were not levied, the taxpayer would, in effect, be providing a subsidy to private users of the office. I would say to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), however, that these matters are always under consideration, and if other airlines can provide similar value for money and equal flexibility of service, any bid from such an airline could be considered in due course.

Retail Savings (Sandler Review)

Ruth Kelly: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Sandler review, published this morning, and the Government's preliminary reactions to it.
	Twelve months ago, the Government asked Ron Sandler to review the market for medium and long-term retail savings, and I am extremely grateful to him for his work in producing the report. The remit of the review was
	"to identify the competitive forces and incentives that drive the industries concerned, in particular in relation to their approaches to investment, and, where necessary, to suggest policy responses to ensure that consumers are well served. It will look at the applicability of the principles of investment proposed by the Myners review of Institutional Investment."
	Ron Sandler's recommendations have the potential to bring benefits for consumers and the retail investment industry and to improve the workings of the market. They will mean more competition, greater efficiency and more productive investment. That builds on the agenda that we started in 1997, introducing individual savings accounts; charges, access, terms standards; and stakeholder pensions as simple, easy to understand savings vehicles. They also build on our agenda to improve effectiveness and competition in financial markets.
	The review proposes a set of simple, safer investment products that it calls "stakeholder products". Those products would have a strict cap on charges, restrictions on investment profile and the ability to exit easily on reasonable terms. As regulation would be built into the products themselves, firms would be allowed to sell them through a streamlined system of sales regulation. That would make it profitable for providers and distributors to sell to a wider range of less-well-off people; it would encourage people to save.
	The review shows how the sales process for investment products can be costly and time consuming, disenfranchising many on low and middle incomes from investment that would benefit them. Shifting the burden of regulation from the sales process to the products themselves for products aimed at the smaller investor would help to improve access to saving without sacrificing consumer protection.
	For people with more sophisticated investments, more complicated products may of course still be appropriate. Those products would not replace, but complement, the existing market, and for many products, the current regulatory approach should remain.
	Building on the review's suggestions, we shall be consulting consumer representatives, the industry and the Financial Services Authority on those stakeholder products and their design. We shall be working closely with the FSA, which will separately want to consult on the regime for their sale.
	I should stress that seeing the value in simpler products with simpler sales regulation does not mean that we do not value financial advice. On the contrary—the review presents a challenge for the industry and others to think radically about how they provide advice. Advice is too often understood as an adjunct to a sale, not something valued in its own right. As a result, it is perceived as costly, time-consuming and inaccessible to those on low incomes, but it simply is not the case that only the wealthy need or would benefit from advice.
	The review's proposals ought to make it possible for the industry to offer to the mass market good-quality, high-level advice that helps people to understand their financial needs and the products that can meet them as a complement to the sale of stakeholder products. I look forward to the industry's response.
	Those on lower incomes also have a need for financial advice. Citizens advice bureaux and other money advice centres across the country offer good-quality, impartial advice to many people in financial difficulty. People have argued that their remit should cover financial advice more generally. I am pleased to say that the FSA has offered to fund research into extending the role that those organisations might be able to play. I welcome that, and look forward to seeing the results.
	The review proposes reform to with-profits policies, and describes an "ideal model" of with-profits policy. It would still allow the smoothing features that so many investors have found valuable, but it would be transparent, allowing investors to understand and choose the policy that is best for their needs. It would also clearly separate out the policyholders' and shareholders' interests that are currently intertwined in the dominant 90/10 model.
	The review does not propose that every aspect of the ideal model should be mandatory, except for a with- profits policy sold as part of the stakeholder suite of products, but it does suggest that much of the transparency of the ideal model could be brought to existing with-profits policies.
	With-profits policies are a huge feature of the British savings landscape. Many people have valued, and will continue to value, the ability to smooth out investment returns, so change in this market cannot come over night, but with-profits policies do need to change. Indeed, the FSA and the industry have begun this process already in their recent work. The review has proposed a balanced approach that I believe represents an opportunity to move to a new, stable future for the with-profits market. The FSA will be consulting on the review's proposals on with-profits, which build on its earlier work, as part of its continuing consultations on with-profits.
	The review strongly supports the FSA's proposals to reform the market for the distribution of investment products. It also has some specific recommendations about the way in which independent financial advisers should be remunerated.
	It will be for the FSA to consider the review's recommendations as part of its own consultations on reforming the "polarisation" system, but they have the potential to bring big benefits of increased choice for the majority of consumers currently investing through the "tied" channels, which offer the products of only one provider.
	The review proposes an increased and ring-fenced consumer education budget for the FSA and better co-ordination of the Government's work for financial education. The FSA has welcomed this suggestion, and will consult on whether to increase its consumer education budget. The Treasury meanwhile has already begun work to co-ordinate the Whitehall effort devoted to financial education.
	Clearly, many consumers find the retail savings market complex and hard to understand. One answer to that is to simplify the market, but the essential complement to simplification is to create better financial knowledge and awareness among consumers.
	The review proposes a set of investment principles for providers of retail investment products, which builds on the approach taken in the Myners review. It proposes that disclosure should in most cases be voluntary. The Government agree that disclosure should help to produce a more transparent, better-informed and hence more competitive market. We will be taking that proposal forward in consultation with consumer representatives, the industry and the FSA.
	Finally, the review contains a broad-ranging analysis of the impact of the taxation system on the savings industry, and urges that the system be as simple as possible. It makes a number of proposals on specific current tax rules, which include abolishing qualifying life policies and the 5 per cent. tax deferred withdrawal rule for life insurance policies; equalising treatment with respect to exemptions from VAT on fund management fees; simplifying the pensions tax regime; and considering changing the rules for individual pension accounts and others.
	We shall consider the review's proposals on tax as part of the Budget process in the usual way. In so far as Ron Sandler's proposals relate to pension saving, they will also be taken forward in the context of the Government's proposals on pensions, which we will set out in the autumn. The Government believe that Ron Sandler has tackled long-standing concerns about with-profits policies, and has given the industry the opportunity to draw a line under the problems of the past and to build a new, stable future for with-profits.
	We believe that Ron Sandler has produced proposals that have the potential to produce a simpler, more transparent and more competitive retail investment industry. His proposed stakeholder products will be easier for people to understand, and viable to sell to a wider range of less-well-off people. That can only help to meet our ambition to raise the level of long-term saving.

Michael Howard: For the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I express my gratitude to the Financial Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement.
	I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Dispatch Box. It was very brave of her to volunteer to make the statement—if, indeed, she did volunteer. It was rather less brave of the Chancellor not to volunteer himself. After all, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who once made this issue his own. Was it not the Chancellor who promised in opposition in 1995 to find new ways of making saving more long term, to widen savings to more people and to link the need for savings for investment to the need for people to save for their retirement? Was it not the Chancellor who promised in government five years ago that the measures he was introducing would encourage more people to save? Was it not the Chancellor who twice set a performance objective to promote a fair and efficient tax and benefit system with incentives to save?
	Why has the Chancellor not come to the Dispatch Box to explain his progress—or lack of it—in fulfilling those promises? Why is he not at the Dispatch Box to defend the stakeholder pensions that he pioneered, and to explain why they have reached just 100,000, which is all of 2 per cent. of the target market of 5 million people? Why is not the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box to defend his pensions tax, which yields £5 billion a year and costs pension funds a total of £100 billion—equivalent to £400 being taken in tax from every single contributing member of a pension scheme every single year? Was it not the Chancellor who advised the Prime Minister just three weeks ago to justify that tax on the basis that there had been a massive increase in the stock market over the last five years, a statement that was not true then and is not true now?
	Is it not the case that five years into this Chancellor's stewardship of the economy, we have a crisis in pensions and a collapse in savings? Is it not the case that the savings ratio is predicted this year to reach an all-time low—

Nick Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I take points of order after the statement.

Michael Howard: Is it not the case that the savings gap for retirement has been put at at least £27 billion this year? Is this crisis in savings and pensions not a crisis over which this Chancellor has presided, a crisis that he has promoted, a crisis that he has, in large part, caused and a crisis that, it seems, he has now asked his Financial Secretary to explain? The Chancellor, in large measure, created this crisis, but he is not man enough to come to the Dispatch Box to apologise for it.
	The criteria against which the Sandler proposals should be judged are whether they, unlike Government policies to date, will help to reinvigorate the savings and pensions markets and whether they put the consumer interest first. We welcome many of the proposals, including those that would increase the amount of consumer education, those that would increase the transparency of with-profits polices and those that would simplify the sales process. Simplicity and cheapness are, of course, desirable objectives. But have not we seen with stakeholder pensions that simplicity and cheapness do not always, by themselves, succeed?
	How will the Financial Secretary ensure that, unlike stakeholder pensions, these measures will indeed cater for people on low or moderate incomes? How will she ensure that the limitation on returns will not adversely affect the provision of capital for the industry in this country, thus narrowing the range of choices available to consumers? How will she ensure that the call for tax simplification, which is welcome, is not used as a back door to increase taxes yet again? What effect does she think the new model for independent advice would have on the number of advisers? Is there not a danger that many of them will be encouraged to become multi-tied agents, with a loss to consumers of access to independent financial advice?
	Is not the most fundamental question that the Financial Secretary needs to address the collapse in confidence in the ability of this Government to get anything right in this area? Was it not this Government who needlessly abolished PEPs and TESSAs? Is this not the Government who introduced pension credits, described by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) as creating a form of permanent serfdom and sending out to potential savers the message, "The more you save, the less you get"?
	Is this not the Government who cook the books time after time? Only last week the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was obliged to come to the House to apologise for the fact that the Government had overestimated by no less than £35 billion last year alone the amount being saved by the people of this country for pensions? Having acknowledged that error, instead of giving us the correct amount, the Government's response is to recalculate the figures on a different basis so that no direct comparisons can be made.
	Today, the Financial Secretary has been like the man who follows the horses at the Lord Mayor's show. But she has not been following the horses; she has been following the Chancellor, who sits there brooding in silence, afraid to come to the Dispatch Box, content for her to face the music. Five years after his fine words on savings, the finger of blame would not point to savings providers or to pensions advisers, but fairly and squarely to the Chancellor himself.

Ruth Kelly: Let me begin by saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has vast experience in this House—much greater than mine. I am surprised to hear him make such petty and insubstantial points about what is a very serious report. On process, he knows better than most that it is the tradition among financial services Ministers to make statements about financial services. Indeed, I believe that he himself spoke to the House on such matters as a financial services Minister. I would have thought that he might welcome my coming to the House at the earliest opportunity to speak about these serious issues.
	It was this Government who volunteered the statement; the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask for it. The truth is that he wants to concentrate on process because he has nothing to say about substance—at least, nothing that he wants people to know about. He does not want to mention his policies to privatise the basic state pension, to scrap the minimum income guarantee, or to abolish the pension credit. He certainly does not want to talk about his record in government: pensions mis-selling, the halving of the state earnings-related pension scheme, and increased pensioner poverty.
	I shall deal with each of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. He referred, as is usual on these occasions, to the abolition of tax credits for pension funds. He knows that the abolition of such credits was part of wider corporation tax reforms, which injected an extra £3.5 billion into the system through cuts in corporation tax and removed a major distortion in the tax system, and which will provide a positive climate for long-term investment. He certainly does not propose to reinstate those tax credits; if he does, let him say so today.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to the fall in the savings ratio, but perhaps he should understand that gross household savings have remained robust over the past five years. Indeed, according to the Association of British Insurers—the figures were used by Ron Sandler in his report—in respect of total household spending on life and pension products, total long-term savings increased by 15 per cent. in real terms between 1997 and 2000, compared with the previous period, when his party was last in government. The problem is that, as the Sandler report correctly indicates, savings behaviour has increasingly become skewed towards higher-income households. Today's report is a serious attempt by Ron Sandler to identify the reasons why low and middle- income households have been disenfranchised from the savings process.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman made one or two serious points about the report, and I welcome his approval of some of the serious measures contained in it. He asked about the future of financial advice. The report provides an opportunity for the industry to think seriously and radically about how it can provide real financial advice that meets the needs of ordinary low and middle-income earners, and about how it can turn advice into a commodity that is valued and trusted by consumers. I welcome the fact that the FSA has offered to fund research into how that might be made possible.
	The proposals that we set out in the report deal with the savings gap for tomorrow's pensioners, just as this Government are tackling pensioner poverty for today's pensioners. Is not the truth that the only alternative that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can offer is a record of failure in government and a set of extreme proposals in opposition?

John McFall: I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she agree that this is a wake-up call for the industry in the light of past financial scandals? We need to restore people's faith in saving, so that they can close the £27 billion gap. Does she also agree that, if the recommendations are pursued constructively, we could open up a mass market in which ordinary people can buy simple, transparent and less sales-regulated products? At the moment, the lack of such products is hindering the development of that market.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As Ron Sandler correctly indicates, the advice process has increasingly disenfranchised low and middle-income consumers, because it is geared towards the regulatory structure and the tax treatment of individual pension and life insurance products, rather than the real pension needs of individuals. The report offers a major opportunity for the industry to fill that gap and I look forward to working with the Treasury Committee and others in the House who are interested in the serious proposals contained in the report, to see how we can take the agenda forward.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the thorough review, the statement and the practical proposals on low-income saving. Do the Government agree with the hard-hitting assessment that Sandler makes of the industry as opaque, uncompetitive, characterised by commission- driven selling, and—as the Consumers Association put it this morning—full of bad products and bad advice? How will the Government address the 20 per cent. savings gap? The industry cannot fill it; Sandler says that tax incentives should not be used; and the Government do not wish to use compulsion, so what options are available to fill the savings gap—and have the Government set the targets to do it?
	I welcome the pilot studies for offering financial advice through the citizens advice bureaux, which is a very good initiative. However, do the Government not feel that that is something that the industry should part-fund in order to restore confidence in financial advice? What we need now is the nationwide availability of pro bono—or very low cost—advice for the benefit particularly of low-income consumers.
	What further action do the Government propose to take to restore consumer confidence by removing the toxic legacy of past mis-selling? Specifically, when will they announce the conclusions of the Penrose review of the Equitable Life affair? When will the Government make a statement on the new rules governing orphan assets, because many policyholders fear that their assets could be expropriated by shareholders under the current rules? We know that there will not be a full review of endowment policy mis-selling, but does the Financial Secretary intend to take the advice of the Consumers Association that there should at least be a naming and shaming of the companies in the industry that were primarily responsible?

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his serious, considered and detailed response to the significant and interesting questions laid out in the report. Ron Sandler has set out a compelling vision for the future of the savings industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take consumer needs seriously, and ensure that products are available that meet those needs and that consumers can buy those products without the morass of regulation and opacity that currently afflicts the market.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the pilot projects and the attempt to find a way for advice to get through to the mass market. We will work with the citizens advice bureaux, the FSA and others in the industry to ensure that in the future it serves the needs of individual consumers. On the issue of orphan assets, a new with-profits ideal model will form part of Ron Sandler's suite of new stakeholder products, which will be simple, transparent, easy to understand and will have appropriate incentives that separate investors from shareholders. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those proposals.
	We need to ensure that we make it easy, simple and efficient for people to buy good-quality, long-term financial products. The report is part of that picture. On Thursday, with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement on the Pickering report and the future of regulations on the pensions industry. In the autumn, we shall set out our proposals on how to take those matters forward. The Sandler report is a serious attempt to analyse the state of the long-term retail savings industry, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his serious and considered remarks.

George Mudie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public will be horrified by the approach of the shadow Chancellor to this important matter, when millions—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe laughs, but millions of people who face an uncertain and poorer future will be appalled by his petty political approach. The shadow Chancellor is a disgrace on this subject and people will take no comfort from that fact.
	Will my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary have another look at financial advice? I notice that the report and my hon. Friend seem to back the polarisation proposals made by the FSA, but will those proposals really encourage the lower-paid to seek financial advice and to make investments? Will my hon. Friend consider the provision of free independent financial advice on the high street—perhaps by using the law centre model or as a financial arm of the CAB?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for those proposals; it is indeed vital that we take the needs of consumers seriously. At present, the industry is skewed towards providing costly advice for a small minority of the market where the choice is between a highly regulated set of products with different tax treatments that are hard to compare; indeed, as Sandler points out, it is hard to compare their underlying investment performance—never mind anything else. The report sets out a vision in which there is a highly regulated simple set of products—the products, rather than the advice process, are regulated. However, we clearly need to complement that set of products with a mass-market advice regime tailored towards the needs of ordinary people who do not need to take advice about complex tax planning and tax treatment. We shall work with the CAB and the industry to find the best way of promoting a new market for financial advice.

Andrew Tyrie: Mr. Sandler makes it clear that small savers are heavily disadvantaged by the cost of what the hon. Lady described a moment ago as the morass of regulation that has come with the introduction of the huge leviathan of the FSA. Within two years of the introduction of that system—billed by the Government as essential for the protection of small savers—an independent review concluded that we need to bypass the whole body of regulations that were created because they had become prohibitively costly. Is that not a massive and savage indictment of the whole structure of regulation that the Government introduced with the FSA?

Ruth Kelly: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was actually advising the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he set up the conduct-of-business regime that surrounds these products. The problem is that the Conservative Government did not implement that regime; it took the Labour Government to set up the pensions mis-selling review, to make sure that £11.5 billion was refunded to consumers who had been sold products inappropriately. Of course, we must now examine alternative ways of providing access to that market, but we were not prepared to preside over the mis-selling of pensions to hundreds of thousands of consumers.

Kali Mountford: Although clarity, transparency and simplicity may be welcome in the market, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that robust regulation is equally needed? If we expect hard-working constituents to invest in savings, should they not have surety that their money will not be mis-spent, misplaced or lost as a result of incompetence in the industry? Is it not the case that we need regulations and that they must be robust?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: safeguards need to be built into the system. Ron Sandler proposes to replace a very complex advice regime with a simpler suite of products in which the product, rather than the sales process, which effectively disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of people, is regulated. A strict cap on charges and an extremely low exit penalty for consumers who change their minds have been proposed, and consumers will have access to the financial services ombudsman and to the financial services compensation scheme if anything goes wrong. Safeguards are therefore built into the process. It is important to put the consumer first, and that is what Ron Sandler is doing in the report.

John Greenway: Is not the real conclusion of Sandler that regulation has failed massively? It is all very well to say that the sales process has rightly removed disreputable elements from the industry, but the fact is that the many millions of people who received advice from, for example, the industrial life offices now no longer receive advice because regulation has put all those offices out of business. The hon. Lady and the Sandler report have made the right analysis, but only time will tell whether they have reached the right conclusions about the solution. It is all right to say that we will now regulate by product, but she should think carefully so that the regime she puts in place ensures that people buy suitable products. Without suitability, we will have another mis-selling scandal in the years ahead.

Ruth Kelly: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman concentrated on the details of the report. I do not share his conclusions. Although I agree that simplification on the regulatory, tax and advice fronts is the answer to many of the issues, we must ensure that consumers are properly protected. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the report, because Ron Sandler's proposals are designed to make sure that the suite of stakeholder products that he sets out are accompanied by a set of questions that are asked of individuals before they buy products. The questions distinctly point out any risk that may exist, and they will point someone away from a product if it is not suitable for that customer. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report.

Paul Flynn: Is not the truth that most with-profits policies are now with-losses policies? The public have been confused, bamboozled and cheated by so-called advisers whose main interest was earning fat commissions rather than selling good-value products. Is it not right that the orgy of deregulation in the 1980s led to the impoverishment of millions of people because of mis-sold personal pensions, endowments, general insurance and savings products? Should my hon. Friend not take comfort from the report's suggestion that the way out is to simplify policies on the lines of stakeholder pensions, which have the great virtue of having very low commissions while offering very good value for those who take them out? Is that not the way forward?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, although some of them were perhaps geared towards the shadow Chancellor.
	My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about commissions and the issue has been analysed in detail in the report. Ron Sandler accepts the principle and the need for genuinely independent financial advice to be available to consumers. He also accepts the research that suggests that commissions can skew the sales process and are perceived as doing so. He is determined to see a viable and truly independent future for financial advice.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister say whether the new type of with-profits schemes—as set out on page 27 of the report, which calls for a separate management company—will do away with the appalling situation in which countless millions are offered to pay for mis-selling, with the money coming out of the assets of innocent policyholders? Should not that problem be sorted out, and will the report do that through its recommendations on page 27?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. When Ron Sandler looked at the issue, he proposed establishing an ideal with-profits fund that would separate shareholder and policy interests. It would have a separate smoothing account, which would not be intertwined with the operation of the rest of the account, that would fully separate charges from investment returns. The idea behind his proposals for stakeholder products is that they should be completely transparent, so that no inherited estates lack transparency and conceal charges. Ron Sandler makes an interesting contribution to the debate and I look forward to working with the FSA and the industry on the proposals.

Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is entirely appropriate that she should be at the Dispatch Box and we welcome her to it?
	Does my hon. Friend agree that the host of constructive suggestions in the Sandler report, which the Government did well to commission, are welcome given the need to do more to support young adults to save, faced as they are with the prospect of contributing to the costs of their further and higher education and their lifelong learning, and of buying a home, providing a pension and, eventually, providing for long-term care? Does she further accept that in seeking to provide more security for savers, it is important to make it clear that the principle of caveat emptor is not set aside, because no amount of transparency or simplification of regulation will abolish folly and greed?

Ruth Kelly: I completely agree that it is vital to protect consumer interests. As Ron Sandler usefully sets out, the problem with the current regime is that consumer interests are not properly protected and skew and distort the market for financial savings products. He proposes a new way forward that protects the consumer by regulating the product rather than the advice process. There are, of course, many safeguards built into the process, but it is right that the consumer interest is at the heart of the vision.

Michael Weir: I welcome some of the interesting suggestions in the report, but does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that some large financial institutions sell only their own products, to which they are tied? We have anecdotal evidence of people attending so-called financial reviews and being pushed an institution's products without the costs of changing policies and taking out new policies being clearly explained. Many such cases mark a return to the churning that was prevalent before the Financial Services Act 1986.
	The Minister talks about the transparency of the new products. Will financial institutions continue to be allowed to be tied to their own products? If so, how will we avoid that problem recurring with the new products, as there are bound to be differences between products? Will she take up the plea by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) to ensure that everyone receives independent financial advice before they take out many of these products, which are so important for their future?

Ruth Kelly: Ron Sandler endorses the view made clear by the Financial Services Authority that genuinely independent financial advice needs to be available to the consumer. That means that it cannot tied to the commission of the provider when a sales person makes a sale. He does not rule out the fact that tied agents may still exist, but he endorses the vision that if a sales person calls himself an independent financial adviser he must be truly and genuinely independent.

Tam Dalyell: A significant number of my constituents work in the financial institutions in Edinburgh, as indeed do those of my parliamentary neighbour, the Chancellor. What was the Treasury's initial reaction to recommendation 10.172? It states that there should be thorough consideration of
	"all the differences in treatment between pensions provided through life companies and non-life pensions (and in particular the difference between insurers and others for the VAT treatment of pension fund management)",
	and recommends
	"that the Government considers making the playing field level wherever possible by, for example, extending the VAT exemption for pension fund management fees to include those levied by non-life companies."

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend asks a very serious question. In his report, Ron Sandler specifically points to the fact that although unit trusts and unit-linked life policies are effectively the same product, it is almost impossible to compare them or their underlying investment performance because of their different tax treatment. We endorse the idea of having a regulatory and tax treatment system that is as streamlined as possible, but clearly I shall not now commit my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on matters that will, rightly, be considered in the Budget.

Peter Lilley: I congratulate the Financial Secretary on her role, which when I held it, I was told, often involved downplaying the significance of embarrassing U-turns in the policies of the Chancellor.
	May I return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)? Why was it thought necessary two years ago to protect small savers by imposing a complex and costly system of regulation, when now it is thought that the only way to make savings products affordable for small savers is to exempt them from that system of regulation and to regulate the product separately?

Ruth Kelly: We are consulting on and taking forward the proposals in Ron Sandler's report. He correctly identifies the trade-off between the regulation of the conduct of business or of the sales process and regulation of the product. What is proposed now is a suite of stakeholder products that are simple, transparent, easy to understand, easy to sell and easy to take advice on. It is appropriate that we attempt to make that trade-off and to put the consumer in the driving seat. In the process we will drive much greater competition and transparency into the industry.

Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are providers, particularly of stakeholder pensions, who are doing an excellent job? For example, B&CE, which is based in Crawley, provides more than 175,000 stakeholder pensions to construction workers, who traditionally would never save at all for their future. Does she agree that, following the Sandler review, it is vital that we continue to work with the best providers in the industry to ensure not only that we protect the people buying the products but that it is as simple as possible to sign up for a stakeholder pension so that those who would not traditionally be interested in such products have access to them?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. At the heart of the proposals is the idea that people should have access to simple, transparent and easy-to-understand products, such as stakeholder pensions. As the proposals are taken forward, they will make access to stakeholder pensions even easier. We started out by encouraging access throughout the workplace, making it as easy as possible for people to save, and we now intend to develop that process.

John Redwood: I have declared my interest in the register. Given that the biggest problem facing the savings industry in this country has been brought on by the collapse in the stock market, can the Minister explain why the British stock market has fallen further and faster than the American or the European ones? Do we not need a Government wealth warning on all savings products in Britain: "This Government's taxes and regulations can damage your wealth"?

Ruth Kelly: If the right hon. Gentleman checks his facts, he will see that there has been an almost 5 per cent. real rate of return in the equity market since 1997.

Nick Palmer: On Thursday, the Treasury Committee will take evidence from people who have lost up to 99 per cent. of their investment in complex trusts. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need two separate markets: one for sophisticated products for which there is strong regulation and good advice, and one for basic products that are well protected, as recommended in the report? Does she agree that many people rarely come into contact with anyone who routinely gives financial advice? As well as looking at the possible role of citizens advice bureaux, she might consult the industry on incentivising others, such as trade unions and even employers, to take an interest in advising people?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes some extremely interesting points. There will always be a need for financial advice for those with sophisticated financial needs who want to take advice on the different tax treatment of different products. However, we must also meet the needs of those whose financial circumstances are less complex. I believe that that can be done through a new mass market in financial advice.
	We are, of course, prepared to work not only with citizens advice bureaux but with others involved in the wider industry, including trade unions, for example, to see how we might extend advice in the workplace. It is important that, wherever they are, people have access to the basic financial advice that they need.

Steve Webb: The Financial Secretary mentioned caps on charges. What conclusion does she draw from the example of the stakeholder pension 1 per cent. cap? People on low incomes whose saving is intermittent are simply not profitable because 1 per cent. of not very much is even less, and as a result many pension providers have laid off the whole of their direct sales force—the very people who explain the process and sell the product to people who do not have much money. Is she not worried that the same thing will happen if that attitude is adopted for other products?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns expressed by the industry. The time it takes for an independent financial adviser to make a sale has increased from about two and a half hours per sale 10 years ago to about six hours per sale today. Clearly, that increases the costs to the industry of every sale made, whether it is to someone with relatively ordinary needs, or someone with highly sophisticated, difficult and complex financial needs. Ron Sandler's vision is of a new framework whereby simple stakeholder products can be sold without that costly, time-consuming advice process. That will make those sales far more profitable for the industry, so I think that the industry's argument about a 1 per cent. cap on charges will evaporate.

Mark Hendrick: Without prejudicing the outcome of any FSA research, does my hon. Friend believe that the future lies in paying up front for financial advice, rather than in relying on commission for producers? Is it not important to regulate advisers as well as producers, so that customers, and not only producers, get the best deal?

Ruth Kelly: The FSA is working on how to change the financial advice regime so that those who call themselves genuinely independent financial advisers cannot be completely dependent on commissions that might skew or be perceived to skew the advice they offer. That vision is broadly supported in the report, although Ron Sandler has a slightly more flexible interpretation of how advice can be paid for.
	The need for consumers to buy appropriate products is clearly at the heart of Ron Sandler's proposals. He sets out a regime in which rather than the salesperson being highly qualified and the sales process overregulated, the product itself is regulated. There is a strict cap on charges, there are limits on exit penalties, and it is simple to move between products. That is a different way of protecting the consumer, but consumer protection is clearly at the heart of the proposals.

Tim Loughton: The Financial Secretary's statement would have more credibility if we had not heard it all before, four and a half years ago, and if her figures added up. She said that there had been a 5 per cent. annual return on the market in the past five years, but the yield on the market in each of those years has never been more than 3 per cent. gross, and in capital terms the market is back to where it was in 1997, so her figures simply do not add up.
	Will the hon. Lady cast her mind back to 7 December 1997, when the then Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), launched individual savings accounts? His pamphlet contained the statement, backed by the Prime Minister, that ISAs would attract 6 million new investors—almost half as many people as were predicted to go to the dome. What has happened to those 6 million investors during a five-year period in which the savings ratio has fallen by two thirds?
	While we are on the subject, will the Financial Secretary explain what has happened to CAT standard marks? How many financial products—what percentage of them—now carry CAT standard marks?

Ruth Kelly: On a point of fact, not only is the stock market higher now than in 1997, but the market capitalisation of the stock market is almost £350 billion higher than in 1997. On the point about ISAs, one in four adults now have ISA accounts, which have extended savings opportunities to women and people who were previously non-savers.
	Ron Sandler welcomes the idea of CAT standards and product regulation. He emphasises the fact that the introduction of the CAT standard in the ISA market, for example, has transformed charges for consumers, and has led to much greater competition and enhanced consumer benefits.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that ordinary people simply want to be able to present their financial profile to, for example, a CAB and be offered a range of financial products with the assurance that they will be made aware of the risk that they are taking and the level of protection that they are being afforded, perhaps through insurance? In the aftermath of the problems with Equitable Life, the stock market and so on, that would enable us to restore faith in the financial community and market effectively a simple set of products that commands public confidence.

Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we restore trust in financial products and, even more importantly, restore trust in the advice given alongside financial products. One way of doing so might be to extend the remit of citizens advice bureaux so that they offer not just advice about debt but advice about money management more generally. I welcome the fact that the FSA is prepared to look at whether providing that service would be cost-effective, and hope that others in the industry will consider seriously the way in which they might fill that gap.

Ian Lucas: In view of the systematic mis-selling of endowment mortgages in the 1980s, mainly due to the gross negligence of the Opposition in allowing the operation of a completely unregulated scheme—a consequence of that policy is the poverty and distress that my constituents tell me about when they come to my surgeries—is it not possible to consider referring the subject of endowment mortgages to the FSA so that it can carry out a full-scale investigation and put together a scheme to deal with mis-selling?

Ruth Kelly: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, but I should like to tell him that the FSA is being proactive, as it is working with firms to make sure that they offer the appropriate information to consumers and warn them if they face a shortfall. The FSA's remit obliges it to take action that is proportionate to the scale of the problem. I am informed by those at the FSA who know better that a full-scale endowment mis-selling inquiry would cost about £5 billion for pure administration, which is not in proportion to any consumer detriment that has been experienced. That is not to say that consumers do not sometimes find themselves in significant difficulty, but of course they have the option of going to the ombudsman and resolving the problem that way.

James Purnell: Did my hon. Friend hear Sheila McKechnie on Radio 4 this morning saying that stakeholder pensions had been a great success in restructuring the market and getting costs down? Did she also see the research by the Association of British Insurers showing that stakeholder pensions had doubled in less than six months and had been taken up by 800,000 people? Will she take it from me that Labour Members welcome wholeheartedly her attempt to get lower-paid savers, particularly younger workers, to save for their retirement? Will she make a commitment to look at the tax incentive regime to see how younger workers can be encouraged to save more, perhaps through a cash-matching system, rather than complicated tax incentives that they may not understand?

Ruth Kelly: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the success of stakeholder pensions. We now have for the first time a system in which the majority of low-income families have access to a long-term savings product. Proposals in the report will make it even more cost-effective for people to take out that sort of long-term pension in future. My hon. Friend also highlighted the comments of Sheila McKechnie who, I know, endorses the heart of the report's proposals, which will provide significant consumer benefit in future.

Points of Order

Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised a point of order, asking that a statement be made on arms sales to Israel. I think it even more important today, because Jane's Defence Weekly published this morning reports that the Israel Defence Force employed a huge amount of munitions during the offensive against West Bank cities that took place in April. The report continues:
	"The amount of weapons and munitions used in the operation was more than had been used by the Israeli Defence Force over the last decade."
	It is therefore even more important that we get a statement from the Minister on the Floor of the House so that we can discuss the matter. It is totally objectionable that we should be selling even a component or any more munitions to Israel that could be used against the Palestinians.

Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a written answer to a Member of the House yesterday, the Foreign Secretary effectively changed Government policy. It is in stark contrast to his previous position on 16 April, when the Foreign Secretary told the House:
	"I am profoundly concerned about the scenes of widespread destruction of densely populated refugee camps."—[Official Report, 16 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 465.]
	Later, he protested at arms that had been sold by this country to Israel being used against Palestinians. Selling parts of F-16s to the Israeli Government will simply cause more destruction in densely populated refugee camps because, as we have seen, the Israel Defence Force will use them against civilians. Can you advise me how we can get that change in Government policy debated on the Floor of the House?

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not additionally important that there should be an explanation from the Foreign Secretary, in view of the fact that the reason that he has given for part of these decisions is relations with the Americans? The House of Commons deserves some explanation of precisely what these relations with the Americans amount to. Are we to do the bidding of the Americans, whatever they ask, even if it means jeopardising the British position in the middle east?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised the matter with me yesterday, and shortly afterwards a parliamentary question was answered by the Foreign Secretary.
	With regard to raising matters with the Government, we have Trade and Industry questions this Thursday. The hon. Members may be able to catch my eye. Within a fortnight there will be Foreign and Commonwealth questions.
	As for initiating a debate, the hon. Ladies are experienced in these matters and know how to go about seeking a debate. I have no doubt that they will continue to pursue this very serious matter.

BILL PRESENTED

Telecommunications Transmitters (Restrictions on Planning Applications) (No. 2)

Mr. Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to permit a local planning authority to decline to determine an application for the development of telecommunications transmission antennae in certain circumstances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 166].

Emergency Services Personnel (Protection)

Bill Etherington: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to assault, intimidate or otherwise interfere with emergency services personnel in the execution of their duties; and for connected purposes.
	I thank the Government Whips Office for enabling me to have this slot this afternoon, the more so because I was originally supposed to speak on the issue in June, but the date was put back until today. I am extremely grateful to the individual concerned and I have let them know accordingly.
	The matter begins with a letter dated 21 December last year that I received from Richard Bull, who is the chief fire officer of the Tyne and Wear fire brigade. Following an increasing number of assaults both on his staff and on fire engines, he asked for parity along the lines of part IV of the Police Act 1964, the miscellaneous and general sections of which deal with, among other things, offences against the police. I subsequently met the chief fire officer during the Christmas recess, and he gave me a lot of detail that I found alarming. I then applied for this ten-minute Bill. When we look at the details involved in the chief fire officer's request, we see that, in 2001, there were 58 attacks on fire brigade staff, 15 of which occurred in Sunderland, where my constituency is situated. Since April this year, over three months, there was a total of 15 attacks, which is approximately in line with last year's total, but 12 of them occurred in Sunderland. That is alarming; if that level is projected forward, there will be almost a threefold increase on last year.
	The north-east ambulance service has also contacted me about the same problem. In May alone, there were 11 incidents of violence and aggression towards ambulance staff. I have also received representations from the Royal College of Nursing, which has been most supportive of the Bill. It is very concerned about attacks on its people in hospitals. Unfortunately, patients are responsible for most of those attacks, although not all of them. I would also like to place on record my thanks to the Sunderland Echo, the local newspaper in the north-east, which has mounted a vigorous campaign with which I fully agree.
	The situation is well known to everyone concerned—it is not a north-eastern phenomenon. As recently as earlier today, I was informed that the ambulance service in London is to start providing protective armoured clothing for its ambulance personnel, so it is clear that everyone is well aware of the problem. For many years, violence towards public service workers has been escalating. We all know that, despite the fact that crime in general has reduced in recent years, violent crime has taken the opposite course and is increasing.
	That raises a problem and also the issue of the philosophy of how we deal with such problems. It has always been my understanding that it was the Government's job to try to deal with such problems until such time—if ever—as they found an answer, but they must always seek an answer. It surprises me that, for many years, not only the current Administration, but the previous one, have never seen fit to give the same protection to the firefighters, ambulance drivers and medical staff who are involved in the sector that is given to the police. Of course, the police should have that protection, but they should not be alone in that respect. The proposal is also very popular with the public, who want the emergency services to be able to attend to their wants when they need them and to be unfettered in doing so.
	All that I am seeking in the Bill is to ensure that we give out two messages. First, we must make it clear to public service workers that we not only say many fine words in Parliament about the wonderful work that they do, but are prepared to try to legislate to carry those good words into effect. Until now, we have failed to do so. Secondly—this is perhaps even more important—we must try to get the message to the public that such attacks will not be tolerated. We do not need a very vivid imagination to envisage the scenario that we are talking about, in which a fire engine going to a fire in which children might be trapped gets a brick heaved through its windscreen and is put out of operation. That could lead to people dying. We are talking not only about the simple assaults that we all know occur all the time, but about people's lives being endangered by antisocial and criminal behaviour.
	It seems to me that someone who assaults a person who is engaged in providing an emergency service is in a rather different category from that of someone who is involved in everyday football ground violence or an altercation outside a public house or working men's club. Yet the law does not make any provision for that. I do not want to hear the argument that we can leave this to the courts. The courts are not the social conscience of this country—Parliament is supposed to be that. We are supposed to make legislation that the courts carry out, but in this case we have not done so.
	I hope that there is no opposition to the Bill and that it is such a common-sense issue that everyone appreciates its seriousness. Perhaps more importantly, I hope that the Government, if they are not willing to bring in legislation of their own, will give my Bill a fair wind and, indeed, assist it, because it is what the public want. We hear a great deal about the public's disenchantment with parliamentary procedures. They do not think that Members of Parliament are doing their jobs properly or that Ministers are doing a good job, and see no relationship between themselves and this place. It is not too difficult to understand why, given that when there is a big public outcry about an issue, no action is taken to put it right.
	I hope that at some time in the near future legislation will be introduced that deals with transgressors in a robust and rigorous manner, and lets people in the front line of emergency services see that we really do care about them. That is a fairly straightforward request, and I hope that all hon. Members agree with it and give it their support.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. David Atkinson, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. George Mudie, Syd Rapson, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Dr. Rudi Vis and Mr. James Wray.

Emergency Services Personnel (Protection) Bill

Mr. Bill Etherington accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to assault, intimidate or otherwise interfere with emergency services personnel in the execution of their duties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 67].

Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No.2)

John Denham: I beg to move,
	That pursuant to the report [25th June 2002] from Standing Committee A, the Order of 7th May 2002 (Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:
	Consideration and Third Reading
	1. Paragraph 4 of the Order (consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
	2. (1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in one and a half days.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column in the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the table.
	Table
	
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day (half day) New Clauses, New Schedules, and Amendments relating to Part 3, New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Chapter 2 of Part 4 and New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Parts 5 to 7. Seven o'clock or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is later. 
			 Second day New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Part 1. Six o'clock or, if that day is Thursday, Three o'clock. 
			 New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Part 2 and Chapter 1 of Part 4. Nine o'clock or, if that day is a Thursday, Six o'clock. 
		
	
	(3) Proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
	The motion allows for one and a half days for Report and Third Reading, which provides an additional half-day as compared with the motion agreed by the House on 7 May. We have structured the order of consideration to ensure maximum time for debate on what are generally seen as the two most contentious parts of the Bill, namely part I and chapter 1 of part IV.
	The order of consideration also accommodates members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who are unable to be present today. Hon. Members will note that amendment No. 1 is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other members of the Committee. The order of consideration ensures that that amendment is not reached until tomorrow.
	The Bill was extensively debated in Standing Committee, taking up some 28 hours in total, so hon. Members have had the opportunity to give it adequate scrutiny. In any event, the Bill commands widespread support. Indeed, on Second Reading the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that Her Majesty's Opposition
	"agree with or acquiesce in roughly 98 per cent. of it."—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 63.]
	I am sure that as a result of the changes made in Committee its approval rating must now be around the 99 per cent. mark, which is not bad for a Bill at this stage of its progress.
	There are relatively few Opposition amendments, which cover eight substantive issues, and the one and a half days allowed by the programme motion should be more than adequate to debate them fully. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to agree the programme motion.

James Paice: We shall not oppose the motion. As the Minister said, one and a half days should be adequate for our discussions. However, I want to make two specific points.
	First, the Minister rightly said that the timetable allows significant time for discussing what are agreed to be the most hotly disputed provisions of the Bill, especially part 1. However, the motion states that discussion on part 1 will conclude at 6 pm tomorrow. I hope that the Minister can assure us that he and the Home Secretary will prevail on the rest of the Government to ensure that statements do not encroach on that time, because there is no provision to extend the time in the case of a statement. Today's timetable provides for three hours; tomorrow, the deadline is 6 pm. Many would consider two and a half hours adequate for debating part 1. However, it will not be adequate if we lose an hour or so through a statement.
	My second point causes grave anxiety to Conservative Members. Last night, the Government tabled many amendments. All except one relate to one issue, which part 1 covers. Now is not the time to comment on the detail, but the media were apparently informed about the amendments and the Government spin on them before they were tabled or available to any hon. Member. One and a half hours passed after the first press calls to my office and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about the amendments and before I could get copies of them from the Public Bill Office. I understand that, strictly, it should not have let me have sight of them, but I am grateful to the Clerks there for allowing me to do so.
	Despite the Government's apparent Damascene conversion from spin, the reality is different. They seemed more interested in setting the scene with the media than tabling the amendments about which they were spinning. Consequently, it has been possible for us to table amendments to amendments only today. Although that is perfectly in order, I want to underline the point to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will pass on our anxiety to the Speaker so that when he makes his selection for tomorrow, he notes the difficulty in which the Opposition were placed by the timing of the amendments' tabling. I shall not comment on their content; that is for tomorrow's debate, but I hope that we can debate our amendments, too.
	The Minister rightly said that members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs are unable to be with us today. We can make our judgments about priorities, but I accept the reasoning for the Minister's timetabling. I add that it helps my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, who is also elsewhere on parliamentary business today. Matters have therefore worked out all right.
	We shall not divide the House on the programme motion, but I hope that the Minister takes note of my two points and that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have noted the latter.

Douglas Hogg: Under ordinary circumstances, I would divide the House, but as discussion on the programme motion is taken out of the time for substantive debate, I shall not do so. However, I emphasise that I strongly deprecate timetable motions in general and in particular, and I shall make brief comments on that.
	First, any democracy depends on a bargain between the electorate and the House. The electorate will accept obligations and requirements on the assumption that Bills are properly scrutinised. Timetables have a nasty habit of preventing proper scrutiny, and when the electorate realise that the bargain is not being respected, I fancy that their respect for parliamentary democracy will diminish.
	We are talking about a Report stage, which is the occasion on which the House as a whole—particularly those hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee—has the opportunity to participate in the debate. The plain truth is that if we tightly constrain the debate, we exclude right hon. and hon. Members. In the end, that reinforces an unwillingness on their part to participate in debate at all. That is something that I have witnessed in this place over many years, and I deprecate that, as well.
	I would also make the plain, pragmatic observation that, in these circumstances, substantial chunks of important legislation will go largely undiscussed, or perhaps not be discussed at all. That makes me very uneasy about the parliamentary process. Of course, one is entitled sometimes to impose timetable motions. I accept that; I have been responsible for doing so myself in a previous incarnation. But one should surely do so only if there is a pressing requirement for such a motion. We are, therefore, entitled to ask what the pressing requirement is in this case.
	The Minister has told us that there was much agreement on the Bill, and that was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Indeed, the Minister suggested that we agreed on 98 or 99 per cent. of the provisions. If that is the case, why the timetable? So far as I am aware, no Conservative Member—and perhaps no Labour Member either—is minded unduly to extend the debate, so why the artificial constraint? No one can say that the House is overburdened with business at the moment. After all, the House is getting up on a relatively early date—24 July—and coming back on a relatively late date in October. Last week, the business collapsed on various occasions, and, on Thursday, we have a debate on the Adjournment. May I ask, therefore, what is the pressure on parliamentary time? Why are we not allowed an unconstrained debate? I suspect that it is because the Government like tightly to constrain all debates, but I am against them on that point, as I would be against my hon. Friends if they tried to do the same thing.
	I shall not go into the merits of the Bill—you would stop me if I did so, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I want to emphasise that some important questions are to be discussed. I repeat that this is the first opportunity that many right hon. and hon. Members have had to examine the substance of the Bill in detail. After all, they were not on the Standing Committee. Today, for example, we shall reconsider the circumstances in which chief police officers can be suspended, be required to resign, or retire. That is not a minor issue.
	We shall also consider further the ability of the police to obtain specimens from people who cannot give their consent, the ability of the police to seize motor vehicles—those are not a minor matters either—and the orders that can be made against sex offenders, which is a serious issue. My hon. Friend and the Minister were right to emphasise that there will be yet further discussions tomorrow on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can give directions to chief police officers and police authorities as to how they should perform their functions. That, too, is an important issue. I understand that the debate on that matter will end at 6 o'clock.
	My hon. Friend made a serious point about statements, but he did not—I make no criticism of him for this—refer to private notice questions. He was probably here when, for example, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised the question of a statement by the Foreign Secretary regarding the new changes relating to the sale of arms to the middle east. I had the impression, listening to Mr. Speaker at that time, that he was encouraging a private notice question. If, however, there were a PNQ on such a subject, tomorrow's debate would be yet further curtailed. What would be the justification for that?
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made another serious point about the raft of amendments that was tabled last night by the Government. That action was not very satisfactory, given that nine or 10 days have passed since the Committee finished its sittings. That is hard luck, no doubt, on my hon. Friend, but it is worse luck on those outside the House, as they have had no opportunity until today to make representations to hon. and right hon. Members on the points that they wish to have made in tomorrow's debate. That is yet another example of legislation being pushed through the House at an unreasonable and, in my view, undemocratic speed, and I am against it.
	As I understand it, we are not pushing the House to a Division, but I am against timetable motions. I am particularly against the proposition that the time taken by this debate, and by any subsequent Division that we might have been minded to call, comes out of the substantive debate. That could reduce the substantive debate by a further one hour, which is simply an attempt to blackmail hon. and right hon. Members into not protesting at timetable motions. I am against timetable motions, and I believe that we should repeatedly protest against them.

Graham Allen: I have a brief point to make to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in your power to direct the Clerks to total up the time used by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) during many, many programme motion debates so that they can tell the House how many hours, and possibly days, of serious debate on matters of substance he has denied other Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may care to read through past editions of Hansard, where he will find the answer for himself.

Norman Baker: I shall, I hope, be reasonably brief. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been a stout defender of the Government on many occasions in the House.

Howard Stoate: Quite right too.

Norman Baker: Well, one or two.
	I am afraid that I take issue with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as the Bill is not being rushed through at, to use his words, an unreasonable and undemocratic speed. I am the first Member to object to unnecessary reductions in the time available to the House to debate Bills. Such an example was the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was rushed through. This Bill is not being rushed through. We have had 28 hours of debate in Committee, and we have the opportunity here to debate, as it happens, relatively few amendments for a day and a half. I believe that the time allocated is appropriate, so I have no problem at all with the timetable motion.
	The objections to timetable motions surely apply only if the timetable is so tight as to have the consequences to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. That is not the case on this occasion. My only concern is one mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)—the guillotine at 6 o'clock tomorrow. I understand that there is likely to be a statement tomorrow on cannabis, or something of that nature, or there may be a private notice question, so a situation might develop in which the debate on part 1 is curtailed, which would be unfortunate, although not what the Government intend. Will the Minister respond on that particular point? I hope he will, as it would put my mind at rest.
	I am sure that it was scurrilous of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to raise the point that the Government might be involved in media manipulation. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which they would resort to such tactics. Well, if I try hard I cannot imagine them. I note that tomorrow's controversial matters will be dealt with after the statement on cannabis, which means, of course, that the media will have gone home to write about that.
	The other, more serious point is that the Government have managed to timetable this business to coincide with the all-party parliamentary beer group dinner, which will take place tomorrow evening at the same time as a number of important Divisions in the House. For that, I am not very grateful to the Minister.

John Denham: May I respond briefly? The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) set out his reasons for opposing timetable motions, although I have to say that, in the process, he reminded many of us of why we are generally in favour of them.
	On the issues raised by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Lewes (Norman Baker), I had understood that the programme motion was the subject of discussion through the usual channels. On the assumption, for the moment, that we would none the less wish to complete our business with Third Reading at 9 and a 10 o'clock finish tomorrow night, if there can be discussions through the usual channels about flexibility over the 6 o'clock knife in the programme motion, we are willing to entertain that.
	Although I cannot speak for the business managers, I cannot rule out the possibility of a Government statement tomorrow. If some adjustment within the normal finishing time were desirable, we would consider it after the debate this evening. The issues are too important for people to be left with a sense of not having discussed them properly. However, the fact remains that there are only eight substantive amendments in the groups to be discussed in these two days.
	With regard to the media, people living in glass houses should be careful with their stones. Those of us who spent a good part of Sunday being rung up by people saying that they understood from sources not connected with the Government that some deal or arrangement had been reached, and asking about the Government's intentions on these issues, are well used to the briefing that has been going on around the Bill. It is better that we concentrate on the matters of substance before the House and move on.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Police Reform Bill [Lords]
	 — 
	[1st allotted day]

As amended in the Committee, considered.

Clause 33
	 — 
	Removal etc. of senior officers at the instance of the Secretary of State

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 35, line 45, at end insert "a notice in writing".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23.

John Denham: The Government have tabled these amendments in response to a point made in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), so I shall deal with them as a group.
	Subsection (2) provides that if the Secretary of State proposes to require a police authority to exercise its power to call upon the chief officer to retire or resign, he must give the chief officer concerned notice of his intention to do so and an explanation of his reasons.
	The point raised in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend was that the provisions under new subsection (2A) to section 42 of the Police Act 1996, as inserted by clause 33(2) of the Bill, place a requirement on the Secretary of State to give a copy of the notice to the police authority while not explicitly requiring that the notice include his grounds for acting.
	Theoretically, a situation could arise in which the police authority was not notified of the grounds on which the Secretary of State wished to proceed, while the chief officer had received both notice of the Secretary of State's intention and the grounds for acting. That situation would obviously be undesirable, and these amendments will ensure that the notice given to the chief officer includes the Secretary of State's reasons for acting, so when a copy of the notice is sent to the police authority it will be aware of those reasons.

James Paice: I note that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who raised these issues in Committee, is not present. I am not sure whether she is on the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I welcome the Minister's introduction to the amendments, but I want to press him a little, especially on the question of what is in writing and what is not.
	At column 182 of the Committee's deliberations, the Minister clearly said that the Secretary of State would have to give reasons if he wished to remove senior officers. That was during the discussion on what was then clause 29. He later resisted the Opposition's attempts to introduce further rights for inquiries to be held and for the chief officer in question to make personal representations to the Secretary of State, accompanied by a professional adviser, if the Secretary of State intended to use his powers to remove a senior officer or require his resignation or retirement. The Minister also said at that time that he would seek to make regulations under what was then clause 33, now clause 34, which would lay down the procedures to be followed.
	Clause 42 of the 1996 Act, as amended by this Bill, gives chief officers the right to make representations in person if they are to be forcibly retired or required to resign. That right to make representations in person does not extend to the new part of section 11 of the 1996 Act, introduced by clause 32(2) of the Bill, which relates to suspension of chief officers.
	The Chief Police Officers Staff Association, CPOSA, is extremely concerned that, in effect, suspension from duty is tantamount to a requirement to resign. It is extremely difficult for any chief officer who has been suspended—whatever the outcome of the case—to be reinstated with the credibility necessary to carry out their very important duty, and almost every case of suspension will end in resignation. The association is therefore concerned that the right to make representations in person does not extend to the issue of suspension.
	The amendments appear not to extend the inquiry system to suspension, nor do they appear to require the Secretary of State to give notice in writing of where suspension is to take place. They are limited to the specific circumstances in which resignation and retirement are required, but not to the stage of suspension.
	That brings me to the draft protocol, which has been sent to CPOSA. The association is now considering the procedures relating to suspension of chief officers. I will not detain the House by going through the protocol, with which the Minister is obviously familiar; at least, I sincerely hope so. [Interruption.] He is laughing, obviously to inform us that he is familiar with it. He will know, therefore, that nowhere does the protocol refer to an inquiry, to the chief officer being given the reasons for their suspension, or to the opportunity for the chief officer to make representations either in writing or in person if they are to be suspended.
	My challenge to the Minister concerns the very narrow sense of the amendments. From his opening remarks, I understand the specific reason raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that gave rise to the amendments, but behind that is a much bigger issue. The Government are consulting on a protocol that does nothing whatever to fulfil what at least was the understanding of Committee members: that a number of these issues would be addressed in regulations or in guidance.
	I stress again that it is widely believed—Members of this House will accept it—that if a chief officer has been suspended, as with any other profession, it is very difficult ever to regain the credibility that was held before, regardless of the outcome of the case that led to the suspension. Resignation may be the only sensible way forward, regardless of the outcome. That is why I would argue that the opportunity for the chief officer in question to be given reasons why he is to be suspended, the opportunity to make representations in writing and in person, and the opportunity for an inquiry, are important adjuncts to the power that the Secretary of State is taking in the Bill to provide for suspension.
	I challenge the Minister, even at this late stage, to respond to the real concerns of chief officers, expressed through CPOSA to me today, that the protocol is wholly inadequate, and if he is not prepared to alter the Bill, at least to amend the protocol.

Norman Baker: The amendments seem uncontroversial and improve the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I want to refer to the protocol. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has the advantage of me, in that I have not seen the protocol. It is a pity that it has not been circulated to all members of the Committee. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified what he intends to do to make the protocol available to Members of this House. Even if the protocol is not available in its final form, it would be helpful to have the draft circulated, as that would inform discussion.
	That point has particular validity, given that paragraph 49 of the Home Affairs Committee's report states:
	"We recommend that the proposed protocol on the operation of the powers to remove senior officers be published before the Bill reaches report stage."
	Paragraph 43 of the Government's response states:
	"As these discussions are ongoing it will not, in the event, be possible to publish a protocol in advance of Report Stage, but we will do so as soon as possible thereafter."
	Will the Minister please circulate the draft protocol that he has put out for consultation, or make it available by putting a copy in the Library? In addition, what is the time scale for reaching agreement on the protocol? I hope that such agreement will be reached before the Lords consider any further matters relating to the Bill.

Douglas Hogg: I rise to support some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). My hon. Friend is right to say that, under the Bill as drafted, the power to suspend does not require the giving of reasons. Furthermore, the power to suspend in no way triggers an inquiry, which will probably do a grave injustice to the senior officers concerned. My hon. Friend made the sensible point that once a police officer has been suspended, it is extraordinarily difficult to recover their credibility. It is very difficult for them to obtain employment, whether in another force or with an alternative employer. In the absence of the giving of reasons, it will be extraordinarily difficult for them to challenge the justification for the suspension. I ask the Minister to explain why provision is not made for the giving of written reasons, or for the holding of an inquiry.
	Suspension, by definition, is not a final state. What provision will be made for finally determining whether a chief officer is to remain in the force? So far as I can tell, the Bill provides no such procedure. There is no obvious procedure through which a police authority can ask that a chief officer be no longer suspended; nor does the Bill provide for the officer concerned to submit that the suspension be done away with. We have a state of limbo that is entirely dependent on the Home Secretary's discretion. I am always against giving Home Secretaries such discretion, regardless of their political complexion.
	I ask myself another question. Under clause 33, the Secretary of State can choose between suspending, requiring retirement or requiring resignation. What obligation is there on the Secretary of State to consult a police authority in advance on which of those alternatives might be desirable? The answer is: none at all. As far as I can see, the views of the police authority are not necessarily to be sought; it is for the Secretary of State to determine which of the three options is the most attractive. I am against giving Secretaries of State—particularly the Secretary of State in question—such power. Why is provision not made for pre-action consultation between the Secretary of State and the police authority concerned?
	It is clear that there are financial distinctions to be drawn between the consequences of retirement and of resignation. When somebody retires, they normally trigger pension entitlements. As we well know, such entitlements constitute a substantial burden on police authorities; however, the same is not necessarily true in respect of resignation. What consultation will take place between the Secretary of State and police authorities about the preferred route? Nothing in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to undertake such consultation.
	The criteria in question are "efficiency or effectiveness". I realise that that phrase appears in the Police Act 1996—legislation for which the Government of whom I was a member were responsible. However, the question of what is efficient or effective is as long as the Home Secretary's foot; in other words, the power is completely discretionary. We are reinforcing a provision in the 1996 Act that enables the Secretary of State to get rid of a police officer on the subjective judgment that they are not effective or efficient. I am very sceptical about giving any Home Secretary—particularly the present one—that power, and I hope that the House shares my inhibition.
	I am personally in favour of fixed-term contracts for senior police officers, which would mean little need for these provisions. The re-engagement of chief police officers would be considered on a rolling basis every three to five years. The disadvantages of that policy are not so great as to displace the advantages.
	I am very cautious about these amendments. They would give the Executive yet more discretionary power—and I do not value the discretion of the present Home Secretary—in the important policy area of the police service.

Graham Allen: I have one query for my right hon. Friend the Minister. The Home Secretary may issue a written notice of removal to senior officers if he feels that they have been inefficient or ineffective. Does that phrase relate to their performance on operational matters or on non-operational matters? Is there any definition of what an operational matter is? I ask because some years ago, when I had some responsibility for the subject, operational matters were tightly defined, but now they appear to be anything that a chief constable decides is in his remit. That is an important, albeit detailed, issue and I would be happy for my right hon. Friend to undertake to write to me if that is more appropriate.

David Cameron: I share the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and I am very uneasy about the powers that the Government will take to remove senior officers. I am pleased to take part in the debate. I sit on the Home Affairs Committee; as other hon. Members have pointed out, its members are in Brussels. I had to stay in the country for personal reasons, not because of any antipathy to Brussels. I do not wish to be governed from that city, but it is a pleasant place to visit and I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee are having an interesting time.
	I support the Committee's report and what it said about the protocol. I shall return to that issue because it is germane to the amendments. First, however, I must make the point that we are today debating further centralisation. The Home Secretary will have the power to sack every chief constable in the land. I ask the Minister to contrast that situation with that pertaining to the rest of the police organisation. In the Witney or Banbury police station, the chief inspector or superintendent does not have the power to remove ineffective officers in his own force. Power in the police force is going in the wrong direction—towards the centre and the Home Secretary—instead of being devolved throughout the organisation, and the amendments will not improve the situation.
	I accept that the Government have made some concessions and have started to talk about consulting police authorities on the removal of chief constables. However, because of those concessions, the Bill now contains some very tortuous language. The question of the sacking of a chief constable should be a matter for the police authorities. That point was made in evidence to the Committee by Mr. Kevin Morris of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, when I asked him whether he thought that the real responsibility for hiring and firing chief constables should rest with the police authority. He replied:
	"Yes, I do. We do have this tripartite structure which gives the police authorities quite a lot of discretion and a role to play within policing."
	The Bill should reinforce the powers of police authorities, and its failure to do so concerns me most of all.
	The Committee made two recommendations in its report that are germane to the amendments:
	"if the Home Office has concluded that strengthened powers are needed for the suspension and removal of chief constables, it should be able to give a fuller explanation of how they might be used. We would expect these powers to be used only in exceptional circumstances."
	Can the Minister, even at this late stage, give us some more assurances and perhaps even some examples of circumstances in which those powers would be used?
	Our second point had to do with the protocol being discussed by the Home Office and senior officers. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) have both referred to it. The Select Committee stated:
	"We recommend that the proposed protocol on the operation of the powers to remove senior officers be published before the Bill reaches report stage. We hope the House, before agreeing to these clauses, will press Ministers for a fuller explanation of why they are necessary and why the matter cannot be left to police authorities."
	We are asking a vital question—when can the Home Secretary exercise the powers, and when can he not? 5.15 pm
	Above all, where is the protocol? My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is ingenious and seems to have got hold of a copy. The first people I know to have got hold of a copy of the protocol work for The Times. Yesterday, in an article with the wonderful subheading "Crunch week for Blunkett on crime, cannabis and asylum", the newspaper stated:
	"The new Bill includes an extra power to suspend a chief constable or his deputy or assistants where public confidence is undermined.
	Details of the regulations under which such intervention would happen have not been included in the Bill. The framework for such powers is set out . . . in a protocol produced by the Home Office, a copy of which has been seen by The Times."
	It may be a naive question, but if The Times could see the protocol, why could not it be seen by hon. Members before the Bill reached Report stage? If The Times had it, why did paragraph 43 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report state:
	"As these discussions are ongoing, it will not, in the event, be possible to publish the protocol in advance of Report Stage".
	I echo what the hon. Member for Lewes said. Given that my ingenious hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has got hold of a copy of the protocol, perhaps one could be given to all hon. Members, even at this very late stage.
	Why does this matter? Yesterday's article in The Times quoted an adviser—an "aide to Mr. Blunkett", according to the newspaper—who explained why the power might be necessary:
	"We want to consult chief constables about this, but if a police area is completely failing, there is a very strong argument that the Home Secretary should be able to intervene."
	The arguments may be strong, but they should be presented to the House, with copies of the protocol for hon. Members to look at. It seems odd that the Government are still consulting on the matter. Normally, one consults before legislating, but the two processes seem to be going on at once.
	I am unhappy about the proposed centralisation, as we could end up with chief constables looking over their shoulders at the Home Office rather than at local circumstances or their local police authorities. A good example of that was reported by The Times, which has been assiduous recently. We were assured yesterday that Ministers, not all of them Home Office Ministers, are not overseeing individual police forces, but The Times reported that those Ministers were looking at police areas and at the operation of the street crime initiative.
	In an article by Mr. Tom Baldwin—who is known for his close connections with Downing street and for his assiduity in getting stories—The Times reported that it had learned
	"that the police forces, covering areas where 80 per cent. of street crimes are committed, are each submitting weekly crime figures to their own minister from Downing Street's special "Cobra" emergency committee. This committee was set up in February under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister."
	The article states that my own Thames Valley police force is being overseen by the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, who does not even live in that force's area.
	It is clear that the new powers in the Bill will cause chief constables to look over their shoulders at the Home Office, to divine the thinking there and to determine the central initiatives that the Government are driving through. They will not be as worried as they should be about local policing matters.
	In my area of Witney, there has been a spate of bad rural burglaries. I am meeting the Thames Valley area's chief constable tomorrow, and I want to know that he is focused on local issues such as that. I want to be sure that he is not always worrying about whether the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women is satisfied with what he is doing about street crime, or that he is not always looking to the Home Office to see whether he is going to be fired. The power to sack chief constables should reside with the police authorities.
	I shall end with a quotation from the evidence of Sir John Stevens to the Select Committee, as it relates directly to the amendments. I put it to Sir John—not too brutally, I hope—that
	"the Secretary of State may require the Metropolitan Police Authority to exercise its power . . . in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or resign. And he can just sack you?"
	Sir John Stevens said:
	"I think there has to be a very, very detailed debate on what is operational independence"—
	the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—
	"and what might affect operational independence. I am not talking about this Home Secretary, or Mr. Straw, or anybody else. I believe that, the worst case scenario, you should look at someone who might be the Home Secretary who may well want to exercise control over Chief Constables, and it is a golden thread of British justice that the police are independent."
	That golden thread is being unravelled by the powers in the Bill. Those powers will mean that chief constables will consider only the Home Office and how they are doing with Ministers—not even Home Office Ministers in the case of the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women—and they will forget about the importance of local policing.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I support the Government amendments which will be extremely important in delivering better crime prevention to all areas of the United Kingdom.
	I shall set my remarks in context by quoting from "Policing a New Century: a Blueprint for Reform", which included a statement from the Audit Commission. The commission noted:
	"There remain, however, significant variations in performance between police forces. These variations cannot simply be explained by differences in workload or by the varying circumstances forces face . . . There is no consistent link between increases in spending and improvements in performance. Of those forces that increased spending the most between 1994/95 and 1998/99, some registered improvements across a number of key indicators, others did not."
	The report continued:
	"The performance variations at force level are striking. The recorded crime detection rate for burglaries varies between 43.5 per cent. and 7.9 per cent., for vehicle crime between 28.3 per cent. and 4.7 per cent., and for robbery between 50.8 per cent. and 14.4 per cent."
	Few people would find such variation remotely acceptable. I represent an area where the amount spent on policing is significantly higher than in many other areas, yet our detection rates are consistently low. I have great difficulty in explaining that to my constituents.
	Contrary to some of the views expressed in the debate, police officers or chief constables will not be dismissed on a whim. They will be dismissed, or asked to resign or retire following a period during which they will have failed to come to terms with the difficulties that they experience in their community and to deliver good policing services.
	We must find ways of removing from post people who are inefficient and ineffective. The notion that the tripartite system of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, police authorities and the Home Office achieved that in the past is farcical. There have been few cases of dismissal of chief constables in the UK.
	Chief constables should be looking to the Home Office. After all, the Home Office is called to account for the failure of police authorities throughout the country, yet it has little impact on the performance of those authorities.
	I welcome the Government's proposals on the removal of chief constables who are failing. Many areas of the country would benefit—as they would have done if we had introduced such a measure many years ago.

John Denham: We have held a useful debate on a set of amendments on which we agree—I look forward to the debates on amendments on which we disagree.
	I shall take in turn the points that were raised. It is worth reminding the House that for almost 40 years Governments have had the power to initiate the retirement of chief police officers. There is nothing new in that. Some contributors have spoken as though the Home Secretary was taking some new centralising power.
	The new elements in these provisions are, first, the ability to require a chief officer to resign rather than to retire. As we discussed in Committee, the provision is based primarily on the fact that chief constables reach that rank substantially earlier than they used to. Police officers always appear to be getting younger, but chief officers genuinely are younger than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to require someone who might be in their early 40s to retire and receive the benefits of a pension.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the financial issues. We undertook in Committee to work them through with the staff associations, because appropriate provision will obviously have to be made for those who have to resign.

Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister accept that the course of action chosen will have substantial financial implications for the police authority? Therefore, there is a good case for discussing with the authority which of the two courses should be taken.

John Denham: I am not sure that a decision about the appropriate action should be taken on financial grounds. However, the nature of the provision to be made in such circumstances will, of course, be discussed with the CPOSA, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.
	The new elements include the Bill having procedural safeguards on retirement and resignation that did not exist before. We have also discussed suspension, and it has been suggested that the Home Secretary will have an untrammelled power to suspend a chief officer on a whim. I shall not go through the legislation in great detail, but it makes very clear the circumstances in which a chief officer can be suspended. First, he can be suspended by a police authority when it has considered—or has decided to take—action leading to resignation or retirement. There is an important initial stage in the process. The same is true when the Secretary of State initiates action. The possibility of suspension comes into the frame only when a decision has already been made to take measures leading to retirement or resignation, when serious consideration has been given to such measures or when they have been implemented but the chief officer has not yet resigned or retired.
	The Bill makes it clear that the test to be used by the police authority or the Home Secretary is the maintenance of police confidence. Action will be taken to suspend a chief officer if that is necessary to maintain public confidence. Although the wording is slightly different, that is essentially true whether the police authority or the Home Secretary takes action. Therefore, it is not an arbitrary power. The suggestion that it was such a power was made not by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but by other Members who have spoken in the debate.

Norman Baker: To return to the point about public confidence that was discussed in Committee, does the Minister not recognise that if a Home Secretary or Minister rightly or wrongly publicly decried a chief constable, that could lead to a loss of public confidence in that officer who would automatically then be suspended by the police authority because public confidence had been eroded? If confidence had been eroded, it would be difficult to imagine the circumstances in which it would be restored so that the officer could return to duty.

John Denham: I recognise something in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the possibility of an officer's career being damaged by action initiated by the Secretary of State has existed ever since the 1964 or 1966 Act first gave the Home Secretary the ability to act with regard to a chief officer. If the Home Secretary is considering action, a danger must be present, and I do not believe that we have introduced something significantly new in principle.
	Members have reasonably asked about the protocol. The Select Committee on Home Affairs had hoped that the negotiations on the protocol would have been completed before Report—in an ideal world, I would have shared that hope—so that we could discuss them. Discussions are continuing this week between my officials and the CPOSA. If it is possible to conclude those discussions in time for Lords consideration of the Bill, we will make every effort to do so. However, I cannot promise that. It is important that negotiations take place between the Government, the CPOSA and organisations such as the Association of Police Authorities rather than occurring in the pages of the national press.

James Paice: The Minister is right. He has introduced safeguards when chief officers are required to retire, but he has not addressed the problem of safeguards when someone is suspended. There is nothing on such safeguards in the Bill; and the draft protocol, which I have been fortunate to see, makes no reference to them. Many hon. Members said that suspension is extremely damaging, whatever the outcome. The Secretary of State can require suspension and there is no option of a third-party appeal to him. What safeguards will the Minister introduce on suspension?

John Denham: The suspension power comes into effect when circumstances are moving towards action to require a chief officer to retire or resign on either the Home Secretary's or the police authority's initiative. Suspension in those circumstances is seen as an immediate action and response to maintain public confidence. If all the procedural safeguards that are in place for a resignation or retirement are applied to the suspension process, the danger is that that process becomes the hearing on resignation or retirement. The power becomes unusable and the ability to get the right balance between maintaining public confidence and fair treatment of the chief officer is upset. How we handle that process needs to be the subject of discussion on the protocol, and I am sure we have some way to go before that is in a satisfactory form.

Mark Francois: If the protocol is a work in progress, why was a copy of it shown to a journalist from The Times before it was shown to some hon. Members, including specialists who serve on the Home Affairs Committee?

John Denham: I have no idea. I am reasonably confident that it did not come from any source within the Home Office or any Minister associated with the Department. I believe that copies of the draft protocol are fairly widely available in the police service. Chief constables have told me that they have had sight of it, although I have no reason to believe that any of them shared it with The Times. The matter will have to remain a mystery.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked whether there is a legal definition of efficiency or effectiveness in this context. The answer is no. It has not been defined in law, nor has there been a definition in law—certainly not in primary legislation—of operational matters, although the noble Lord Denning referred to a description of operational matters in a judgment 20 years ago. Other parts of the Bill exclude certain decisions from the powers of direction that may be made by the Home Secretary or a police authority, as set out in a new clause.

Graham Allen: Given that "operational" is an elastic term, will my right hon. Friend consider defining it so that the operational creep in the police service, which allows just about everything to be seconded to the powers of the chief constable, is limited? I realise that it might be too late to do that for this Bill.

John Denham: My hon. Friend will see that we have approached the matter in a slightly different way in the Bill. It is much easier, in law and in practice, to define those matters that must be solely the responsibility of the chief constable rather than to define all those that might be called "operational" in a broader sense. In the clauses that deal with what are currently called powers of direction, we have sought to exclude certain types of activity from those that could be the subject of a direction.

Graham Allen: My right hon. Friend knows that I am interested in a particular problem. The chief constable in Nottinghamshire has effectively been able to do away with the beat bobby service in the city of Nottingham by ending what we would all term "community policing". Is my right hon. Friend telling me that nothing in the amendment, the clause or indeed the Bill would have prevented the chief constable from doing something that he can do now with impunity? He can disregard the rhetoric that Ministers dispense at the Dispatch Box; is my right hon. Friend telling me that he will still be able to do so in future?

John Denham: I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but the answer is yes. It is clear from the discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and in the other place that the powers of intervention will not allow us to say to a chief constable, "You must do things our way." They apply only where the quality of service and the results achieved for the public are not satisfactory. The Bill makes provision for codes of practice to which chief constables would have to have regard. That could cover several different areas of policing, but I would not like to speculate today on whether it would cover the issue raised in such detail by my hon. Friend. He has inadvertently given me the opportunity to make it clear that this is not the prescriptive, centralising Bill to run the city of Nottingham from Whitehall that Opposition Members make it out to be.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made valuable points about variation. The thrust of the Bill is to ensure that we bring the standard of all police forces up to that of the best.

Lady Hermon: I apologise for coming slightly late to the debate. Will the Minister elaborate on the nature of the representations that senior officers may make? He will know that under the rules of natural justice a person is entitled to a fair hearing. Given the seriousness of retirement or enforced resignation to an individual, surely it is acceptable and wholly reasonable that he is able to make representations in person as well as in writing.

John Denham: Certainly we intend that the chief officer will be able to make such representations during the appropriate part of the proceedings, and I shall write to the hon. Lady with details about that. We do not intend to make available a full hearing at every stage in the proceedings, but it is obviously right that the rules of natural justice are followed if measures are taken to require a chief officer to retire or resign.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 21, in page 35, line 46, leave out "a notice" and insert "informing him".
	No. 22, in page 36, line 1, leave out—
	'an explanation in writing of'
	and insert "explaining".
	No. 23, in page 36, line 5, leave out—
	'of his intention to require the exercise of any power'.—[Mr. Ainger.]

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Scottish sex offender orders

'(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In section 20(1) (application for a sex offender order in Scotland) for "in the area of his police force" there shall be substituted "who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, the area of his police force".
	(3) In section 20(2) (conditions to be fulfilled), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public".
	(4) In section 20(3) (court to which application must be made)—
	(a) after "application to" there shall be inserted "—
	(a) ";
	(b) at the end there shall be inserted "; or
	(b) the sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any part of the area of the applicant's police force.".
	(5) In section 20(5) (prohibitions which may be imposed), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".
	(6) In section 21(7) (time limit, variation and revocation of order)—
	(a) in paragraph (b), after "revoked" there shall be inserted "(in the case of a sex offender order, by the appropriate court for that order)";
	(b) in paragraph (b)(i), after "the order" there shall be inserted " or, in the case of a sex offender order, any other relevant chief constable".
	(7) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
	"(7A) In subsection (7) above—
	'the appropriate court' means—
	(a) the sheriff who made the sex offender order; or
	(b) the sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any part of the area of the applicant's police force or of the police force of any other relevant chief constable;
	'relevant chief constable' means a chief constable who believes that the accused is in, or is intending to come to, the area of his police force."
	(8) After subsection (7A) (inserted by subsection (7)) there shall be inserted—
	"(7B) Where a sheriff makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of the subsequent one."
	(9) Subsections (5) to (7) apply in relation to applications and orders under section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 3—Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
	Government new clause 4—Sex offender orders: Northern Ireland.
	Government new clause 5—Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland.
	Government new clause 6—Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland.
	Government amendments Nos. 48, 50, 60 and 61.

John Denham: In Committee we introduced amendments to sex offender orders made in England and Wales to bring more flexibility to the application process, to introduce interim orders and to extend the jurisdiction of sex offender orders to the UK as a whole. The five new clauses in this group provide parallel provisions for sex offender orders made in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Parliament passed a Sewel motion on the 27 June allowing the UK Parliament to legislate on its behalf.
	New clauses 2 and 4 make three changes to the application process. First, when police forces know that an offender intends to come to their area, they will be able to apply for an order prior to the offender's arrival. Secondly, police forces will be able to make an application to any court in their police area, rather than only to a court in the area in which some of the risky behaviour took place. Thirdly, police forces will be able to vary orders at courts in their own police area without having to go back to the original court that made the order. That is not necessary in Northern Ireland because there, there is no limitation on which court may hear a variation. New clauses 2 and 4 also make it possible for the prohibitions in Northern Ireland and Scottish orders to extend to the UK as a whole by amplifying the definition of "the public" to
	"the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public".
	New clause 5 introduces interim sex offender orders in Northern Ireland, allowing police forces immediately to put into place preventive measures whenever necessary. Interim orders will have the same effect as full orders. Interim sex offender orders already exist in Scotland. New clauses 3 and 6 make breach of an order, whichever jurisdiction created it, an offence in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The other amendments are consequential.

Nick Hawkins: The Opposition are pleased that a Sewel motion was passed by the Scottish Parliament enabling the new provisions to be introduced in line with the Government's proposals in Committee. We agreed with the Government's action in Committee, but it is fair to say that although we welcome the Government's having taken the opportunity to use the Bill to expand the operation of sex offender orders and make them more flexible, the Government might need to do more. From discussions with Ministers, I know that the Government recognise the need to keep the issue under review; that, too, is welcome.
	I pay a personal tribute to another Home Office Minister, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who assisted me on an especially difficult constituency case that is relevant to the new clauses. In that case, a person who had committed serious offences was about to try to move from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. The Minister was extremely helpful. There is no doubt that the provisions relating to England and Wales that the Government introduced in Committee, and the new clauses and consequential amendments that introduce those provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland, will help the police.
	None the less, we ask the Minister to repeat on the record the assurance that the Government have not closed their mind to making further changes if it transpires that there are other loopholes. The case with which I dealt, and the not dissimilar cases with which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) have dealt, have exposed potential difficulties in the law as it stands.
	We all want there to be a really effective set of provisions in statute to control dangerous sex offenders and prevent their committing further offences. After the tragic Sarah Payne case, we are all especially conscious of the need for the law to be very tough and not to allow any loopholes to remain. Having said that, I welcome the Government's action, but ask the Minister to reassure us that if we propose further changes, the Government will consider our proposals seriously.

Norman Baker: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am happy to express full support for the Government's proposals. We also supported the amendments made in Committee. The provisions are sensible and they will close one or two of the loopholes that all of us recognise need to be closed.
	Like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I am aware of at least one relevant case. After becoming the subject of an order, an offender in a Welsh force's area moved to Scotland. The relevant Scottish force was informed of the order, the man's behaviour was monitored, and I understand that risky behaviour was observed. An additional order had to be sought because the prohibitions of the first order were not legally binding in Scotland. That is not satisfactory. The loophole must be closed, the Government are right to close it, and they have our full support.
	I welcome too the heightened commitment from Ministers to deal with sex offences generally—a small straw in the wind, but welcome none the less. The Home Secretary personally answered a question about rape at Home Office questions, which did not go unnoticed. He has also said that he intends to introduce legislation to update sex offences legislation, which is overdue. I am therefore pleased with the Government's response in this regard, both this afternoon and more generally.

Douglas Hogg: I am afraid that I do not share the enthusiasm that some hon. Members have expressed for the amendments. When I look back at section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, I am struck by its draconian nature. One must therefore ask oneself whether one should extend it even further.
	Under section 20(2)(b) of that Act, the power to make an order is exercised on a standard of proof less than that required under the criminal code. Under section 21(7)(a), the order can be made indefinitely. Under section 20(5), the prohibitions imposed
	"are those necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the person in respect of whom the order is made."
	Someone who satisfies the criteria—I accept that they have to have been a sex offender in the past—can have an indefinite prohibition imposed on them on a standard of evidence that falls far short of that required in the criminal courts. The order may require them to desist from a particular occupation, living in a particular place or pursuing certain conduct—all on a standard of proof below that used in the criminal courts and for an indefinite period.
	We are extending that provision, and I view that process with considerable suspicion. I am a little surprised, as clause 20 is a Scottish clause, that we have not had the privilege of hearing from a Scotland Office Minister. As other matters refer to Northern Ireland, I am a little surprised that we have not had the privilege of hearing from Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office, but so be it—those are small points. At the end of the day, we are extending draconian powers, and we need to be jolly careful about doing so.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry that we have not had input from a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will grant me the courtesy of accepting that as someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, my views may carry just as much weight as those of a Minister from that Department.
	We in Northern Ireland are particularly in favour of the extension of the orders, as our position has become increasingly difficult—when sex offenders moved into an area, we could not impose interim sex offender orders. A number of my constituents are exceedingly concerned about that problem, so I wish to compliment the Minister, rather than criticise him, on introducing the new clauses. However, I should be grateful for clarification of two matters. First, new clause 4(2) will change the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 so that it reads,
	"If it appears to the Chief Constable that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to . . . any person"—
	meaning a sex offender—
	"who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland"
	Will the Minister clarify what is meant by a person who
	"intends to come to . . . Northern Ireland"?
	Does that extend to people coming form the Republic of Ireland, as well as the rest of the United Kingdom?
	Secondly, the Minister will know that under section 21 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a chief constable in England and Wales
	"shall consult the local authority"
	before a sex offender order is made. In Northern Ireland, we do not have a similar procedure. The Chief Constable has no obligation to consult a local authority. Bearing in mind the impact of the Patten report and reform of policing in Northern Ireland—the central element of which is to bring policing closer to the community—was any consideration given to consultation with the new district policing partnerships which will mirror district council areas in Northern Ireland, or was the matter overlooked when the new clauses were tabled?

Annabelle Ewing: I, too, place on record my regret that no Scotland Office Minister has seen fit to be present during the debate on these clauses, which will of course apply to Scotland. Perhaps that is symptomatic of their somewhat cavalier attitude to the treatment of Scots law matters in this Parliament.
	On behalf of the Scottish national party, I welcome the closing of loopholes in the sex offender order system and in the enforceability of such orders throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that that will help to ensure public confidence in the way in which we deal with sex offenders.
	Reference has been made to the debate in the Scots Parliament on 27 June this year on the Sewel motion passing jurisdiction on this matter to Westminster. During that debate, my SNP colleagues raised some concerns, motivated by the need to proceed as urgently as possible. At that time, it was not clear whether the Bill would complete its legislative passage through this place before the House rose for the summer recess. During the debate in the Scots Parliament, we in the SNP were arguing for the passage by the Scots Parliament of emergency legislation to ensure that this vital matter was dealt with urgently. Of course, the Scots Parliament retains jurisdiction over criminal justice matters and on several occasions has passed emergency legislation in the criminal justice field.
	During that debate—I mention this on the off-chance that the legislative completion of the Bill does not proceed in the way it appears to be heading—my SNP colleagues sought a guarantee from the Scottish Executive Minister that, if the passage of the Bill in Westminster was delayed for any reason, the issue of sex offender orders would be brought back to the Scots Parliament when it reconvenes at the beginning of September after its shorter summer recess, to ensure that emergency legislation would be forthcoming.
	We support the principles of the new clauses and the consequential amendments. I hope that the introduction into Scots law of such important new provisions will not be delayed simply because they have been tagged on to Westminster legislation which, for the most part, has no application in Scotland.

John Denham: I shall deal with the points in turn. I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the new clauses and amendments. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that it is the Government's intention to respond in the autumn to the conclusions of the consultations on the "Setting the Boundaries" report on sex offences generally. In due course, we will look for legislative slots to take forward our proposals in that regard. As we discussed in Committee, we have used the Bill to introduce necessary and urgent measures, but this is by no means the end of the issues that need to be addressed. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
	I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). He is right to notice the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to these issues.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that the powers were draconian; they are. They are powerful measures, which the House has judged necessary to protect our children from people who have a record of sexual offences and who may be displaying behaviour—for example, hanging round children's swimming baths or playgrounds—from which the public wish to be protected, and the public do not understand why there is no preventive measure. The House and other Parliaments having decided to introduce such measures, it is appropriate that we make sure that they work as effectively and flexibly as possible.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about a couple of points. Yes, the power can potentially be used against a convicted sex offender from abroad. It could obviously also be used in circumstances where somebody convicted in this country had travelled abroad and was coming back. Precisely because situations have arisen where police have become aware that a convicted offender is moving to their area, whether from within the country or from abroad, the power is necessary. Somebody may, for example, be relocated or housed upon release through a registered social landlord. It may become quite widely known that that person is moving to a particular area, but at present the police cannot act until the person has taken up residence in the area. Clearly, that has been a matter for public concern.
	On the comments of the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), let us hope that because of the utmost reasonableness of the Government and our accommodating approach to the Report stage, any questions of legislative delay need not entertain us.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland

'After section 21 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) there shall be inserted—
	"21A Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland
	(1) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything in Scotland which he is prohibited from doing there by—
	(a) an order under section 2(3) or 2A above; or
	(b) an order under Article 6 or 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)),
	he is guilty of an offence.
	(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both." '.—[Mr. Denham.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Sex offender orders: Northern Ireland

'(1) Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) (sex offender orders) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1) (application for a sex offender order)—
	(a) for "in Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted "who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland";
	(b) for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".
	(3) In paragraph (2) (which identifies the court to which an application must be made), for the words following "1981 to" there shall be substituted "any court of summary jurisdiction".
	(4) In paragraph (4) (the prohibitions which may be imposed), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".
	(5) In paragraph (7) (discharge of orders), after "parties" there shall be inserted "and subject to paragraph (7A)".
	(6) After that paragraph there shall be inserted—
	"(7A) Where a court makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of the subsequent one."
	(7) Subsection (4) applies in relation to applications and orders under Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section."'.—[Mr. Denham.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland

'(1) After Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) there shall be inserted—
	"6A Interim orders: sex offenders
	(1) This Article applies where an application for a sex offender order ("the main application") to a court of summary jurisdiction has not been determined.
	(2) The applicant may apply by way of complaint under Part VIII of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/ 1675 (N.I. 26)) to the court for an interim order, pending the determination of the main application.
	(3) The court may make an interim order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order if it considers that it is appropriate to do so.
	(4) An interim order—
	(a) shall have effect for the period specified in the order;
	(b) shall (if still in force) cease to have effect on the determination of the main application.
	(5) While an interim order is in force, Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c.51) shall have effect as if—
	(a) the defendant were subject to the notification requirements of that Part; and
	(b) in relation to him, the relevant date (within the meaning of that Part) were the date of service of the order.
	(6) The applicant or the defendant may apply for the variation or discharge of the interim order by a further order.
	(7) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an interim order, he is guilty of an offence.
	(8) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (7) shall be liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.
	(9) Where a person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (7), it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/ 3160 (N.I. 24)) in respect of the offence."
	(2) In Article 7(7) of that Order (sex offender orders: supplemental)—
	(a) after "a sex offender order" there shall be inserted "or an interim order under Article 6A";
	(b) after "Article 6(6)" there shall be inserted "or 6A(6)".'.—[Mr. Denham.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland

'After Article 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) (which is inserted by section (Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland) above) there shall be inserted—
	"6B Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland
	(1) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything in Northern Ireland which he is prohibited from doing there by an order under section 2, 2A or 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) he is guilty of an offence.
	(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) shall be liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.
	(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (1), it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/ 3160 (N.I. 24)) in respect of the offence."'.—[Mr. Denham.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 57
	 — 
	Specimens taken from Persons Incapable of Consenting

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 55, line 6, after "patient" insert—
	'no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 7A of this Act and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 40 to 46.

John Denham: The amendments seek to protect a person unconscious after an accident by providing that a constable cannot ask for a blood specimen to be taken if the medical practitioner with clinical care of the person objects. The amendments meet an undertaking that I gave in Committee to consider an amendment covering the same ground moved by the hon. Member for South–East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).
	The amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 introduced by clause 50(1) make it lawful, but not compulsory, for a medical practitioner to take a specimen when requested, if he thinks fit. The Bill already prevents the request being made to the practitioner with clinical care of the person concerned. Clearly, it would not be fitting if the practitioner with clinical care objected or if it were against his own medical judgment.
	The Road Traffic Act already protects hospital patients by providing that a patient cannot be required to give a specimen if the clinician objects. Clause 50(2) further amends the Act to provide additional protection in that, when he recovers capacity, the person from whom the specimen was taken cannot be required to consent to its analysis if the clinician objects.
	It has never been our intention to allow a specimen to be taken without consent where the clinician objects. However, we need to ensure as far as possible the equality of treatment between conscious and unconscious patients, at whom the measures in the Bill are aimed.
	At present, a clinician can object to, and so prevent, a conscious patient from being required to provide a specimen. Under the Bill as it stands, the clinician can object to, and so prevent, an unconscious patient being required to consent to analysis of a specimen, but he cannot object to, and so prevent, the specimen from being taken in the first place. In practice, that is highly unlikely to happen: a medical practitioner would not take a specimen if the clinician objected, for reasons of medical ethics and professional etiquette. It remains, however, a theoretical possibility. The amendments would remove that possibility. Parallel amendments are made to the Transport and Works Act 1992.

James Paice: The Minister knows that the Opposition strongly support this cluster of amendments, which puts right a legal anomaly that has allowed some people to escape prosecution for their crimes because they were unconscious at the relevant moment. We support that, but, as he said, we raised in Committee the issue of the responsibility of the clinician in charge of a patient and his right to refuse to allow a sample to be taken. The issue arose in the British Medical Association's representations to me and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response, which I welcome. He did not say whether he had spoken to the BMA about the amendments. Will he confirm that he has done so and that it is happy and content that they achieve the objectives about which it expressed the concern from which the original amendments arose?

Annette Brooke: I speak for myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) in welcoming the amendments. It was especially pleasing to see the Minister responding to the very good points that were made, and we all appreciate his taking them away and incorporating them into the Bill.

Douglas Hogg: Before I can give my consent to the amendments, I should like the Minister to answer one or two questions, both general and particular. First, new section 7A(1)(d) to the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
	"it appears to that constable that that person's incapacity is attributable to medical reasons."
	I need to know a little more about the meaning of the phrase "medical reasons". I cannot find any illumination in the definitions section of the Bill, but such reasons may be defined in other legislation. In that case, it would be helpful to know which legislation is involved.
	My anxiety is that the incapacity in question could arise from a mental disability. On the face of it, such disability could well be attributable to medical reasons. The Minister spoke about somebody being unconscious, and such circumstances will clearly fall within the definition, but what happens if an individual is suffering from a severe disease or abnormality of mind? Does the phrase "medical reasons" prevent the clause from applying to such a person? I require clarification on that question. If the clause can apply to such a person, we are considering giving somebody who is suffering from a mental abnormality or disease a warning about the consequences of not supplying a specimen, which is a pretty pointless activity.
	We need to be clear that the classification of individual for which the clause provides does not extend to the mentally ill or abnormal, otherwise, we have got a problem. Of course, one resolution would be to provide that the warning should not be given unless the medical practitioner certifies that the person is capable of understanding it. If the medical practitioner made such a statement, one might assume that the position of the patient was safeguarded.
	My question is this: does the provision cover those who are mentally ill, and if so, what protection will be given to such people? They would not understand the warning and a prosecution might well flow in respect of an offence that they did not fully comprehend.

Candy Atherton: My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have been much exercised by the issue with which the amendment deals because of the case of the late Sarah Kettle in my constituency and the campaign that her mother, Mary Kettle, has run to obtain justice for families who find themselves in similar circumstances in future. Will he assure me that blood can be taken by a medical practitioner when somebody has been involved in a serious accident such as that which occurred in the Kettle case and ensure that, in similar circumstances, justice can be seen to be done in future?

John Denham: Certainly, it is very much the intention of the clause to ensure that justice is done in future. There has been extensive discussion with the British Medical Association about trying to get the legislation right and to ensure that it has the right checks and balances. The underlying problem is that of somebody who has been involved in a road accident and was drunk at the time, but can escape prosecution purely by virtue of being unconscious. That is the loophole that we are trying to close. It is only fair to the House and to everyone else to say that we are seeking generally and in the amendment to ensure that the proper clinical duties of doctors and their ethical position are also respected. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) would not expect anything different.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked about the BMA. In answer to his question, I have to confess that I have not spoken to the BMA. I have every reason to believe that the amendment deals with the issue that it raised, but he asked me a direct question and I must give him a direct answer: I have not spoken to the BMA, but I would be mortified if I found out that the amendment did not address the issues about which it was concerned.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked about people who are mentally ill. Perhaps I have missed his point, but I am not sure whether he has entirely understood the gist of the provision. Clearly, the person's incapacity must be attributable to medical reasons. Given the essence of that safeguard, I do not think that there is any question of a sample being taken if either the medical practitioner making the request or the clinician who is responsible for the person's care objects. That is the purpose of the amendment: it builds into the system the clinical protection of the judgment of the clinicians who are responsible for dealing with the matter. I do not think that the difficulty to which he alluded will arise in practice. If there is a problem of definition, the provisions will place clinical responsibility on the clinician who is responsible for the individual patient's care to object if he does not think that the procedure is in the patient's clinical interests.

Douglas Hogg: I should like to press the Minister a little further. Two circumstances trouble me. First, a prosecution can follow from a failure to supply a specimen. For that to happen, a warning must be given, but in order to accord with the rules of natural justice, the warning must be tendered in such a way and to such a person as to ensure that it can be understood. A mental patient may not be able to understand the warning, which is given by the constable and not the doctor.
	Secondly, and rather differently, if a person who has had an accident was rendered unconscious and is in a pretty woozy state on coming round, the constable may well set about giving a warning prematurely, when the patient may not fully understand what is going on. Surely, there should be some requirement to ensure that if there is any doubt about the patient's ability to comprehend the warning, the medical practitioner will be asked to express an opinion.

John Denham: The legislative approach is that, under existing road traffic legislation, it is conceivable that somebody who is asked to provide a sample will be unable to comprehend the warning, although one might query why such a person was driving a car. None the less, that is possible under existing legislation, so there is nothing new here.
	We are introducing a protection that attempts to put the unconscious person from whom the sample is taken in the same position as that of somebody from whom a sample is taken under existing legislation. If a sample is taken and the person decides on regaining consciousness that they do not wish it to be analysed, they can refuse to allow that to happen. They will therefore have put themselves in the same position as that of somebody who is competent to refuse to allow the taking of a sample and decides to take the consequences of being taken to court in relation to that refusal. We have carefully structured the provisions so that a person from whom a sample is taken while they are unconscious can, if they like, put themselves in exactly the same position as somebody who refused a sample in the first place.
	With regard to the circumstances to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred, in which somebody with a mental incapacity was unable to understand the question, unless such a person was unconscious at the time, which would mean that they were dealt with under the provision, the situation would be unchanged from that which applies under existing road traffic legislation.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 40, in page 55, line 8, leave out—
	'section 7A of this Act'
	and insert 'that section'
	No. 41, in page 55, line 10, after "proposal" insert—
	'to take the specimen or'.
	No. 42, in page 55, line 17, after "that" insert—
	'the taking of the specimen,'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 59
	 — 
	Equivalent provision for offences connected with transport systems

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 59, line 9, after "patient" insert—
	'no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 31A of this Act and'.
	No. 44, in page 59, line 11, leave out—
	'section 31A of this Act'
	and insert 'that section'
	No. 45, in page 59, line 13, after "proposal" insert—
	'to take the specimen or'.
	No. 46, in page 59, line 20, after "that" insert—
	'the taking of the specimen,'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 60
	 — 
	Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 60, line 28, after "occasion", insert—
	'within the last six months'.
	When I raised the issue of the seizure of motor vehicles in Committee, I came away from our relatively short discussion a little concerned about the Minister's reply, so I hope that he will forgive me for raising it again today. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendment tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friends the Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke).
	I want to outline a theoretical case which I hope will interest the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Clause 60 allows for the following scenario. A constable who has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a way that causes or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance has the power, if the vehicle is moving, to order the person who is driving it to stop, and the power to seize and remove the vehicle, using reasonable force to do so. So far, so good. The constable is required to warn the person that that will be the consequence if the vehicle's use is continued or repeated, or if the use has continued or has been repeated after the warning. Equally, I see no problem there. The clause includes the reasonable provision that a warning is not required if the circumstances would make it impracticable for the warning to be given. It also includes certain other let-outs that make good common sense. Again, so far, so good.
	What worries me is subsection (2), which states:
	"A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set in subsection (3)"—
	that is, the power to stop and seize—
	"where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion"—
	I repeat, on any occasion—
	"in a manner falling within subsection (1)."
	That worries me for two reasons. The immediate problem that would cause the constable to wish to seize or stop the vehicle has gone, because the vehicle is no longer causing any problem. Therefore, the necessity to stop the vehicle has completely gone, and the necessity to seize it is perhaps limited to the constable's fear or suspicion that the intimidatory behaviour may be repeated. That may be justifiable if it turns out that the person who owns the vehicle has a history of behaving in a way that leads the constable reasonably to conclude that they will again use their vehicle in a way that will cause alarm, distress and annoyance to members of the public.
	The problem is that there is no time limit on such a seizure. Moreover, the constable may not have been able to give a warning to the person driving the vehicle. That means that it is possible that some months or years later—I accept that it is a remote possibility, but it is what the clause allows—a constable could come along and seize a vehicle, saying, "I wanted to give you a warning at the time, but I could not stop you. This vehicle was involved in an incident, so I am exercising my powers to seize it." The Minister may think that that is rather far-fetched, but it is a possibility, as he admitted himself. I remind him of what he said in Committee:
	"The hon. Gentleman conjures up the possibility of the seizure without warning of a vehicle many months after an event. As the clause is constructed, that is a theoretical possibility, although whether it is likely to happen is a matter for speculation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 June 2002; c. 365.]
	The Minister is rightly keen on removing theoretical possibilities—indeed, he did so about 10 minutes ago when he dealt with a matter to do with blood specimens, saying, "It remains a theoretical possibility, so we are acting to remove it." I therefore hope that he will apply that logic to the matter that I have drawn to the House's attention and remove the theoretical possibility that is conjured up by the clause.
	The six-month limit that my colleagues and I are trying to insert is reasonable. Surely, the Minister can envisage no circumstances in which a constable would wish to seize a vehicle after six months. If he does not wish to have a time limit, he must accept that the theoretical possibility that I have outlined could happen, which would be a gross distortion of justice. After all, there can be no certainty that the vehicle seized was driven by the person who owned it. A person could have a vehicle stolen and because it is subsequently found three streets away, that person does not bother to tell the police that it happened. During the time that it was missing, the vehicle could have been used for purposes to cause alarm, distress or noise to members of the public. Some months later, the law-abiding citizen who retrieved his or her missing car could be confronted by a constable who says, "On one occasion this vehicle was driven in such a way that I am now going to seize it, because I was not able to give a warning to the person driving it." If the person then says, "It went missing but I didn't report it because it turned up three hours later", the constable will say, "That's a likely story, sir—I'm seizing your vehicle."
	Although that is obviously not the intention of the clause, I suggest to the Minister that it is drafted in such a way as to allow the possibility to occur, and he therefore needs to insert some safeguards. The safeguard that I propose is a six-month time restriction. That is a normal time restriction which is applied by the police in all sorts of cases, and it would not be unreasonable to include it in the clause. Given that the Minister recognises that theoretical possibilities need to be removed, as he said 10 minutes ago in respect of blood samples, I am sure that he will support the amendment.

Douglas Hogg: Although I am not sure that I support the amendment, the hon. Gentleman identifies a point of some substance. There are two issues here, because clauses 60 and 61 have to be read together. Clause 60(2) enables the police to stop an individual who was not responsible for the antisocial behaviour set out in subsection (1), and to do so on the basis of hearsay—that is, information that is neither known to him personally nor within his ability to check. So a driver can be stopped and have his vehicle seized for behaviour that was not carried out by himself, in a situation where the constable has less than adequate knowledge on which to base his decision.
	Yet more problematic is what happens where the owner is perfectly innocent. Under clause 61, the regulations to enable the owner to recover the seized vehicle are couched in permissive terms only, so the Secretary of State is not obliged to lay regulations enabling an innocent owner to recover it, but only "may" do so. Together, the two clauses represent an undesirable curtailment of liberty.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief in dealing with this. On 25 June there was a short debate in Committee, which is recorded at columns 364 to 366 of Hansard. We understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has raised, but we anticipate that the Minister may say that an artificial time constraint of only six months might be rather too restrictive. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) spoke in Committee to express his view that the measures were very widely framed. Although we do not support what the hon. Member for Lewes says, we recognise, as did the Minister in Committee, that he raises a theoretical possibility.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman correctly anticipates that I am going to ask the House to resist the amendment on the grounds that I am not sure that an arbitrary time limit is a good idea in this context. It is worth noting clause 60's reliance—not exclusively, but for the most part—on circumstances in which a constable has already given a warning to those indulging in the antisocial use of a motor car. I have some discomfort with the idea that a warning that has been given might lapse because of some arbitrary time limit. I will therefore ask hon. Members to resist the amendment.
	On late seizure and the effects on an innocent person, the Bill makes it mandatory that people who did not know about the vehicle's use should get it back without charge. That is a provision in the Bill, although there are details about charging through regulations.

Douglas Hogg: I wonder whether the Minister is right. I presume that the power to reclaim the vehicle will be made under the regulations. Clause 61(1) provides:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to . . . the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner . . . may seek to have it released".
	Why is not the provision to lay the regulations mandatory rather than permissive?

John Denham: Draftsmen have different views about whether "may" means "shall" and vice versa in legislation, and we are in one of those terrible debates. However, the Secretary of State intends to make regulations. He will thus fulfil the requirements of clause 61(3), which states:
	"Regulations . . . must provide that a person . . . shall not be liable to pay . . . if . . . the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and . . . he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure".

Norman Baker: I understand why the Minister does not want an arbitrary time limit. However, clause 60 is loosely worded or widely drawn. Will he recognise that there is at least the potential for injustice? What further safeguards does he propose? Does he acknowledge that clause 60(5) provides that a warning is not necessary?

John Denham: I made a point of saying that the clause relies largely but not exclusively on warnings. Subsection (5) allows for circumstances under which a warning is not practicable. I do not agree that the clause is loosely worded. It allows necessary operational flexibility. We should not forget the severe disruption that many of our constituents suffer through the irresponsible and unauthorised use of off-road vehicles, such as motor cycles, and people who joyride repeatedly around the same residential estates and roads. That causes great distress. I believe that clauses 60 and 61 reflect the mood in Committee and respond to a genuine environmental nuisance caused by irresponsible people against which action must be taken. Seizing vehicles will often be the best method of tackling that.

Norman Baker: The Minister is right that vehicles that are used in a
	"manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance"
	create severe disruption. Nobody disagrees with that, and the Committee's mood was to support the clause's intention. My colleagues and I fully support its purpose. It is sensible that steps are available to the police to deal with vehicles that are used in the manner described by the clause. My constituents, like others, are subject to such unwelcome use of vehicles, and we support measures to give the police powers to tackle that. However, we do not support provisions, the drafting of which allows injustice to occur. The Minister has failed to deal with that.
	The Minister accepted that a warning will not necessarily be given and that a vehicle could be subsequently seized without warning. He has not explained why subsequent seizure, rather than seizure during an alarming incident, is appropriate. The alarm has, by definition, passed if the vehicle is not seized or stopped during the incident. He did not state that a vehicle may not seized from an owner who has no knowledge of the vehicle's use. The potential for injustice cannot be justified by the Government's proper attempts to deal with the nuisance caused by vehicles used in the manner that clause 60 describes.
	Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government or the parliamentary draftsmen to draw up a clause that deals with the "alarm, distress or annoyance", which hon. Members of all parties want to tackle, while ensuring that injustice does not occur. I am disappointed that the Minister has failed to deal with that aspect of my argument.
	However, we have a timetable motion and there are other matters to discuss, and I shall therefore not try to divide the House. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62
	 — 
	Antisocial behaviour orders

Julia Drown: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 63, line 20, at end insert—
	'(6A) At the end of subsection (3) there is inserted "; save that, where the behaviour giving rise to the complaint involves prostitution, the complaint may alternatively be made to a county court."
	(6B) In subsection (4), after the words "magistrates court" there is inserted (or, as the case may be, county court)".'.
	The amendment would allow antisocial behaviour orders involving prostitutes to be considered in the county courts as an addition to current powers that permit them to be considered in magistrates courts.
	Residents in central Swindon suffer severely from the prostitutes and pimps who frequent the area. A recent survey of residents found that most men had been propositioned. Only last week, a gentleman told me that he was driving normally and safely from the community centre and was shocked when someone jumped into the back of his car. If that can happen when someone is simply leaving a community centre, hon. Members can imagine the problems that many men in the area are experiencing.
	Many women are also propositioned, causing offence and distress. Prostitution has an impact not only on people's social and family lives but on businesses in the area.

Douglas Hogg: I understand the problem that the hon. Lady is outlining, and I am not against her. However, why does she want the application to be made to the county court, not the justices?

Julia Drown: I shall deal with that shortly.
	First, I want to explain the disruption that prostitution is causing. I know of a child minder who is obviously embarrassed about the situation when the people whom she helps come to her door. Even 10-year-olds have been propositioned by prostitutes. That is clearly unacceptable. Condoms are discarded in people's gardens and in alley-ways, and there is harassment from pimps and prostitutes. We have got to the point of telephone lines being pulled out of people's homes.
	I congratulate the police on their work on the problem. They have put extra resources into the area. Councillors, especially local Labour councillors, have been trying to tackle the problem. The community council has also been supportive. However, those are temporary solutions, and the community welcomed the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders. Great faith was placed in taking prostitutes to our magistrates court.
	When the four prostitutes were identified, much work was put into ensuring that there was a strong case, especially as it was the first use of antisocial behaviour orders. I am attracted to the orders because they can be used to tackle other issues, such as the drug problems that many prostitutes in the area experience.
	There was a co-ordinated effort to get an antisocial behaviour order through our magistrates court. The community experienced extra frustration when there was a delay. As hon. Members know, magistrates are voluntary, and the court worked hard to get the three magistrates together for a three-day hearing. The delay caused problems; once again, I congratulate the community council, which kept threats of vigilante action at bay. Hon. Members can imagine the community's frustration when a defence solicitor in the magistrates court described antisocial behaviour orders as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is not the case, and that the orders are appropriate for dealing with the genuine problems that prostitution causes.
	The magistrates did not believe that the case was strong enough or that it fulfilled the requisite conditions. Hon. Members can imagine the huge disappointment in the community after that decision. A lot of work went into analysing the case, and into assessing whether it had been strong enough and whether the conditions had been fulfilled. The local borough council and the police strongly believe that the conditions were fulfilled, and that the problem was caused by having to deal with the case in a magistrates court. There was a real feeling that if it had gone to the county court, the application for an antisocial behaviour order would not have failed.
	The reasons for that were, first, that county court judges are used to drawing inferences. In Swindon, the magistrates refused the antisocial behaviour orders because they did not have the evidence to link the individual prostitutes to the antisocial behaviour that they admitted was being caused by the soliciting. There was also no question but that those particular people were prostitutes. County court judges are much more used to drawing such inferences. Secondly, they are much more used to weighing up hearsay evidence, which is particularly prevalent in cases involving prostitution. That greater experience would really help in assessing such evidence.
	Thirdly, county court judges are used to applying a civil burden of proof. Just as they have greater experience of hearsay evidence, they also have greater experience of applying such a burden of proof, and are better informed as to how much evidence is needed to balance the probabilities in such cases. The other advantage of allowing cases to be taken in either a magistrates court or a county court is that the more possibilities there are for bringing antisocial behaviour orders, the more likely a case is to be heard quickly. When we are dealing with real frustration in communities, it is important to try to get the orders in place as soon as possible.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am following the hon. Lady's argument carefully, but I have to say, with great respect, that the delay involved in finding three whole days for a county court hearing would be immense. In most county courts, that process can take three or even six months.

Julia Drown: I appreciate that comment. It took that long in Swindon, too, to get this whole process running. The amendment would allow more possibilities and flexibility. The time scale varies up and down the country, and I would hope that most of these cases would not need three days. The proposal would provide a sensible way for the Government to improve the quality of life for many of my constituents in central Swindon, and I urge the Minister to consider accepting the amendment.

Annette Brooke: Antisocial behaviour orders are multi-purpose tools—sometimes rather blunt ones—and because they are applied in many different circumstances, I can follow the argument of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). Indeed, I listened to her speak on the matter in an Adjournment debate which I found very interesting. I had not really thought about the prostitution side of the argument at all; I was hooked into the argument relating to young persons.
	I would remind the Minister that I was very concerned about one use of antisocial behaviour orders, which involved attaching them to a person moving from one area to another. That could have dreadful consequences for a young person. I have also pointed out a use for the orders that had considerable appeal in my area, certainly over the last few weeks. We have to think quite broadly about the orders, and we need a degree of flexibility.
	I am no expert on the different kinds of court, so I do not know what the best solution is to this problem, but I support the hon. Lady's amendment. When we need to address a particular problem, we may need extra flexibility to make the provisions work and, I imagine, to let lots of other measures kick in so that that can be achieved.

Michael Fallon: I, too, support the amendment. I think that all hon. Members want these orders to be more effective than they are, as I mentioned at Home Office questions yesterday. The argument that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) put forward in support of taking this particular route—namely, that county courts would be better equipped to draw inference, to handle hearsay evidence and to judge the burden of proof—might well apply to other categories of offence as well as to prostitution. I am afraid that this brings us back to the question of whether the orders are still sledgehammers, blunt tools, or however we want to describe them. We need to look again at how the orders are processed, taking the time delay into consideration as well.
	It would nevertheless be churlish of me not to recognise that the Minister is trying to improve the way in which the orders work. I certainly welcome the extension of the relevant authorities, and the inclusion of housing associations, which will make a big difference in my particular part of Kent. I hope, however, that when he replies to this short debate, he will recognise with some humility that the orders have been cumbersome to operate and that, three years on, cases such as the one brought before us by the hon. Member for South Swindon show that they are still not working as effectively as they should be. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

John Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon for raising this matter. She has raised it in the House before, and I understand her concerns. No one would deny the real nuisance caused by prostitution and also by kerb-crawlers—an issue on which the Government have recently taken action by making kerb-crawling an arrestable offence.
	I have some concerns about the amendment, however. One, touched on by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), was the difficulty that we might set up an anomalous treatment of antisocial behaviour orders as between one type of offence and another. One of the Government's reasons for routing antisocial behaviour orders through magistrates courts was the perception of the difficulty of accessing county courts through a more traditional type of injunction. I fear that a consequence of accepting the amendment would be a great deal of pressure to put a lot of other antisocial behaviour orders into the county court, much of which might come from defence lawyers seeking to prevent orders being put in place, rather than from those who wish—as do all hon. Members—to make them more effective. For that reason, I must resist the amendment.
	The Government have recognised that there are ways in which antisocial behaviour orders can be improved, and part of the Bill deals with the interim ASBO to that end. We also recognise that a county court dealing with an eviction matter, for example, could impose an ASBO—as, indeed, could a criminal court dealing with a prostitution- related matter. Those measures will be helpful.
	Research that we published earlier this year suggests that some of the time taken in getting ASBOs has, in my view, reflected the way in which people have gone about collecting evidence, the expectation of the courts, and so on, rather than anything in the primary legislation. Part of that stems from our own guidance about ASBOs, which we shall aim to slim down when it is revised once the Bill has completed its passage. There have certainly been cases in which the weight of evidence collected has been greater than anyone would have thought necessary for a criminal case, let alone for a civil injunction of this kind.
	I have travelled round the country talking to people about antisocial behaviour orders, and there is no doubt that magistrates must, of course, consider each individual case on its merits. When local authorities, the police, and others have sat down with the magistracy, however, and explained the context in which ASBOs are being used, their purpose, and the types of problems being tackled, there has been greater consistency by magistrates in supporting applications for the orders. I do not know whether that is relevant to my hon. Friend's constituency, but it may be an issue that needs to be looked at there.
	After this debate, I would, of course, be happy to consider whether we need to address any of the specific issues of inference, evidence, and so on, that my hon. Friend has raised, or whether we need to ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to address them in the context of his role as president of the Magistrates Association.

Lady Hermon: rose—

John Denham: I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must apologise to you, because I spoke with such haste last time that I forgot to thank you for calling me to speak.
	Will the Minister please have a quiet word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, just to put on record with him the fact that we in Northern Ireland would very much like to see antisocial behaviour orders made available to the magistrates courts? We do not have the orders in Northern Ireland at all; perhaps the Secretary of State could give some thought to that gap at another juncture.

John Denham: I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Julia Drown: I do not want to detain the House, so I shall not push the amendment to a vote. However, I hope that the Minister will continue to review the matter, which is important to improving the quality of life of my constituents in central Swindon. I am reassured by his commitment to continue to tackle the issue, and I look forward to continuing our correspondence about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65
	 — 
	Orders on conviction in criminal proceedings

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 65, line 37, after "(6)" insert—
	'for the discharge of an order'.
	The amendment will make a minor drafting change to the clause. Under the legislation, we will enable an ASBO to be made on criminal proceedings. As the Bill stands, however, the ASBO could not be varied in the flexible way that all other ASBOs may be varied. The amendment makes it clear that the application can be made to vary an order at any time by the relevant authority or by the offender. The amendment will achieve consistency between all the orders, and a fair and proportionate system will be established.

Annette Brooke: The Minister will not be surprised that I want to pursue the matter, as I did in Committee although we were rushed, and I am sure he agrees that we did not have time for a proper answer. In Committee, I raised the point that if we are attempting to change as well as stop certain behaviour, which I hope we are, people should not have to go through an absolute two-year period before they can apply, or even have the opportunity to apply, for an order to be rescinded. That would confirm such behaviour rather than give an incentive to reform and to use a new approach.
	Such orders may have an effect, perhaps by shaking up young people and their families, but we are condemning them to a two-year wait with that label on them. Would it not be better to provide the opportunity to get rid of the label and to tackle the behavioural problems rather than just put a stop to them temporarily? Will the Minister consider the fact that although six months might not be enough, two years is a long time for somebody to carry a label if they are determined to change their behaviour?

John Denham: Indeed, the purpose of our amendment is to bring into line the flexibility on other ASBOs and that on those for criminal convictions. I agree with the hon. Lady that, when an ASBO is in place, we must always consider how we can change the underlying offending behaviour.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70
	 — 
	Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 69, line 22, after "Article 6" insert "or 6A".—[Mr. Denham.]

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Duties under Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

'(1) The following enactments shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)—
	(a) section 51A of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) (application of Part 1 of that Act to the police);
	(b) section 49A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (right of police officers not to suffer a detriment in relation to health and safety at work issues); and
	(c) section 134A of that Act (right of police officers not to be unfairly dismissed in relation to health and safety at work issues).
	(2) In subsection (1) of each of those sections, for "officer" there shall be substituted "authority".
	(3) For subsection (2) of each of those sections, there shall be substituted—
	"(2) In this section 'the relevant authority' means—
	(a) in relation to a member of a police force, a special constable appointed for a police area or a police cadet appointed by a chief officer of police, the police authority or, in the case of a combined area in Scotland, the police board (within the meaning of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77));
	(b) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Service Authority for that service;
	(c) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the National Crime Squad, the Service Authority for that squad;
	(d) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable or an appointment as police cadet, the person responsible for maintaining the body of constables or police cadets in question.
	(2A) The Commissioner of Police for the City of London shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if he were a member of the City of London police force."
	(4) After subsection (2A) of section 51A of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c.37) (which is inserted by subsection (3)) there shall be inserted—
	"(2B) The following provisions (which impose the same liability for unlawful conduct of constables on persons with their direction and control as would arise if the constables were the employees of those persons) do not apply in relation to any liability arising in respect of a contravention of this Act—
	(a) section 88(1) of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16);
	(b) section 97(9) of that Act;
	(c) section 42(1) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50);
	(d) section 86(1) of that Act;
	(e) paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 8 to that Act;
	(f) section 39 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77); and
	(g) paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16).
	(2C) The provision which may be made by health and safety regulations includes in particular—
	(a) provision which, for the purposes of this Part specified in the regulations, treats the acts or omissions of a chief officer as if they were acts or omissions of the relevant authority in relation to the constables or police cadets under that officer's direction and control;
	(b) provision which treats premises under the control of a chief officer as premises under the control of the relevant authority in relation to that officer.
	(2D) In subsection (2C) 'chief officer' means—
	(a) a chief officer of police;
	(b) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;
	(c) the Director General of the National Crime Squad; or
	(d) any other person having direction and control of a body of constables or police cadets."
	(5) In each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of that section, for "chief officer of police" there shall be substituted "police authority".
	(6) In subsection (4) of that section, for "or (c)" there shall be substituted ", (c) or (d)".
	(7) Section 5 of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 (c. 42) (payments by police authorities etc. out of relevant funds in relation to contraventions of health and safety legislation) shall cease to have effect.
	(8) An order bringing this section into force may make such savings and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 108.

John Denham: This is an important new clause, which has, I accept, been introduced relatively late in the day. It will make amendments to deem police authorities and, in Scotland, police boards to be employers of police officers for the purposes of health and safety legislation. In the case of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, the service authority for each will be deemed to be the employer of police officers for that purpose.
	Currently, health and safety legislation treats chief officers as the employer of police officers. That has led to the anomaly that chief officers are personally liable when prosecuted as employer for criminal offences alleged to have been committed by their forces under health and safety legislation. That is because forces are not legal entities and cannot therefore be prosecuted as organisations. A chief officer may find himself or herself in the invidious position of being prosecuted as an individual, rather than in a representational capacity, and incurring a criminal record. That could damage the image of policing for no good reason.
	Of course, where a health and safety offence has been committed with the consent of, or through neglect by, an individual, that person should be personally liable, and that will not be altered by these changes.
	The measures will replicate for police officers the position that already exists for police support staff, and the position that will exist under the Bill in relation to designated support staff. In both cases, police authorities are employer.
	Police authorities are well able to discharge the employers' duties and liabilities set out in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. They already fulfil that role in relation to civilians, and the Home Office will negotiate detailed arrangements with all the relevant parties in relation to police officers, in the framework of police authority responsibilities and powers set out in the Police Act 1996.
	Those arrangements will be enshrined in a statutory code of practice. We have consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers and other relevant bodies, and we believe that arrangements can be arrived at which will not undermine the operational independence of chief officers.
	We will give priority to producing the code. It will provide that police authorities are responsible for ensuring that chief officers have in place a suitable regime for dealing with health and safety issues, and that police authorities can call for reports if they are not satisfied that chief officers are carrying out their responsibilities in that area. The code will make it clear that police authorities are not responsible for carrying out health and safety risk assessments, which will continue to be a matter for chief officers.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, I can be brief. Although we understand entirely what the Government propose—we see a great deal of sense in it—we raised in Committee our concerns about the growth of the so-called compensation culture and the fact that, as the Minister is well aware and as he fairly accepted in Committee, on many occasions police authorities have been severely hit by compensation claims of various kinds. Taxpayers' money, instead of going on front-line policing, pays for compensation or the increased cost of police pensions, which is a matter of grave concern to many people, both inside and well beyond the House.
	In the winding-up speech to what I hope is a fairly brief debate, I hope that the Minister says that the Government will keep under review the question of the compensation culture in relation to the police and police authorities. We certainly do not oppose the Government bringing the position in respect of chief officers in line with that relating to civilian staff—as the Minister said, that seems eminently sensible—but one would not want a chief officer to be regarded and treated in the courts as personally liable when the matter should properly be dealt with as one of corporate responsibility, if I may put it that way.
	We understand entirely what the Government are doing, but we remain concerned. We hope that the Minister confirms that he will keep the compensation culture and its effect on police authority funds for front-line policing under review.

Norman Baker: I can be even briefer. I recognise the reason for introducing the new clause, which I welcome as an entirely sensible measure. I hope that I can continue to welcome Government measures as sensible. If I show such generosity, the Government may reciprocate one day.

Douglas Hogg: I have but one reservation. I accept that there is a good case for transferring responsibility to the police authorities, but if they are to perform the various duties under the legislation, they may, in certain circumstances, find themselves making decisions of an operational kind; otherwise, they will be unable to comply with the obligations under the health and safety legislation.

Lady Hermon: I have a request for clarification, which arises out of a briefing that right hon. and hon. Members were invited to attend last week with the Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner. During those discussions it became clear that the new community support officers will be equipped with only a radio: they will not have handcuffs or a truncheon. The new clause makes it clear that the relevant authority means members of a police force, a special constable or a police cadet. Does that cover the duty of care that is owed to the new community support officers?

John Denham: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that this new clause does not directly address that issue, because CSOs as support staff are already direct employees of the police authority, so they are covered by health and safety legislation. Constables or sworn officers are being brought into line with the responsibilities of the police authority. There is no change in the position of CSOs, as in our view they are already appropriately covered.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to operational issues. He may have noticed that I read out my speaking note with more than the usual care. I set out our proposals for a code of practice to govern the way in which police authorities exercise their responsibilities, and said that the position of the chief constable would be protected. After discussion with the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, we are confident that police authorities will be able to accept the responsibilities that they are given under this new clause and that the proper independence of chief officers will be protected. We must give priority to producing the statutory code of practice.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) for his support for this measure, and for his recognition of the Government's generosity. We always seek opportunities to reciprocate, although we have not found many yet.
	The compensation culture is of concern across a huge area of public life, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I would not suggest that there is a particular problem with the police service. However, we need to take a number of steps. Proper attention needs to be paid to health and safety, especially occupational health matters. That is certainly part of the answer. We should minimise the situations in which officers feel that compensation claims should be made. The hon. Gentleman, being a lawyer, will understand better than I the difficulty of denying someone access to the courts for proper protection.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 100
	 — 
	Powers of Secretary of State to make orders and regulations

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 100, line 13, leave out "40(7)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 45, page 46, line 16, leave out Clause 45.

John Denham: Is it not amazing that within a matter of seconds of my being invited to be incredibly generous, an opportunity comes along? The hon. Member for Lewes can be well satisfied.
	This clause was debated at some length in Committee. We see it as a perfectly reasonable and proportionate mechanism, which requires the affirmative resolution procedure. It gives this and future Governments the flexibility to add limited powers to and to take limited powers out of schedules 4 and 5. Essentially, it enables the Government to give limited powers to community support officers and accredited community safety officers, or in the light of experience to remove those powers from the menu available.
	It is worth mentioning that the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in the other place saw nothing wrong with the procedure in the clause. A precedent has been set by the Bill, because my understanding is that up until this Bill it had been a matter of course for Governments and Oppositions to respect, pretty much without question, the conclusions of the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. A precedent has now been set in the other place for not respecting the decisions of that Committee, although I am not sure that that will serve us well in the long run.
	None the less, we are moving into the closing stages of our proceedings on the Bill. It is perfectly clear to me that the opposition that this clause has faced is likely to arise again in the House of Lords, where the Government do not have a majority. For that reason we have added our names to the consequential amendment No. 2. What we will lose by doing that is flexibility. Should it in future be shown that existing legislation should apply to community support officers or to accredited community safety officers, that will be much more difficult. Equally, should it appear in the light of experience that a power has been made available to chief constables that should not have been made available, it will be a much more laborious and lengthy process for Parliament to remove it. That is the cost attached to the amendment, but I recognise the parliamentary arithmetic.
	I hope that in later discussions there will be support for the measures that we have introduced to enable local authority traffic wardens and others to have additional powers to help with the escort of abnormal loads and to take part in traffic checks. We intended to extend powers in that area, so we have brought that measure forward as soon as possible, because we believe that those powers would rapidly have been seen to be necessary.

James Paice: I respect the Minister for moving the amendment, but I feel sure that he would rather not have done so. He explained his move by saying that he recognised the parliamentary arithmetic. Obviously, I would have preferred it if he had recognised the power of oratory that some of us used in Committee. Whatever the reasons for the Government's decision to add their name to amendment No. 2 tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, we are grateful to them for doing so.
	In accepting the situation and speaking to amendment No. 2, the Minister expressed concern about the problem of altering the position should experience in the next few months or few years show that there are too many powers or too few. Without wishing to pre-empt any future debate, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the official Opposition will not oppose the point that he made about traffic powers. I recognise the logic of that: indeed, some of it fits neatly with proposals presented by my noble Friend Lord Attlee in the other place.
	On the question whether schedules 4 and 5 will in time prove to be defective—providing either too many or too few powers—I remind the Minister that over the years we have discovered that the Home Office has a propensity for legislation. We know that there is a substantial amount of legislation in the Home Office pipeline. I feel sure that, should the Government at any stage discover that they need to amend the powers given to civilians, to civilian officers employed by the police or to accredited community safety officers, they will find a suitable vehicle within weeks, if not minutes, to which to append the changes that they need or wish to make. I cannot believe that it will be long before they find a suitable mechanism.
	It is odd that the Government have come to this point so late in the proceedings. At some stage—I have forgotten when exactly—the Minister said that this was not a Henry VIII clause, which is at odds with what his noble Friend Lord Rooker said in the other place. He stated categorically that it is a Henry VIII clause.
	The House of Lords threw the clause out, and the Government reinserted it in Committee, against the advice of my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrats. Then, at about 6 o'clock last night, the Government tabled an amendment that had the effect of adding Ministers' names to our amendment. We welcome the Government's conversion, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in understanding the argument, notwithstanding the arithmetic of the other place. We shall of course support the Government if they seek to divide the House on the issue.

Norman Baker: It is an odd experience to have a Minister add his name to an amendment that carries my name, but I suppose that all of us in the House have to get used to things. I look forward to similar experiences in the future. It is also instructive that when the two main Opposition parties have stuck together and shown determination to remove the proposal, the Government have recognised the arithmetic, as the Minister put it. I am not sure whether that drives the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives closer together; that is a worrying prospect, but it is the logic of tonight's developments.
	I recognise the Minister's admission that this measure would continue to be unpopular with the Opposition in this House and in the House of Lords. It is sensible for him to pull the plug now, rather than suffer a further defeat in the Lords on the matter. To give credit to the Minister, we started off by saying that there was agreement on a large proportion of the Bill and disagreement on only three or four key issues, one of which the Minister has now dealt with. He has lanced the boil on that issue. If he wishes to lance the boil on one or two other issues tomorrow, we can all leave early and I can go to the parliamentary beer group dinner to which I referred earlier. I should like the Minister to consider overnight whether there are further concessions that he might make tomorrow.
	The Minister complained that we were removing flexibility from the Bill; indeed, that was the purpose of the amendment. The serious point is that there is a balance to be struck between what is the proper subject of primary legislation and what is the proper subject of subsequent regulations. It is our view that matters dealing with CSOs are controversial. The Government are bringing in a new concept, and we do not know how it will work. The Government think it will work well; others have more suspicions about how things will turn out.
	It would be wrong to give the Government the power to add powers to CSOs when we do not even know how they will work in practice. It is right that if the Government want to come back—at least for the first time—to add powers, we should be able to have a debate on how CSOs have worked in practice on our streets. That is what the amendment achieves, and I am grateful that the Government have signed up to it. It is useful and allows for a sort of review.
	The Minister said in a letter to the hon. Member for South–East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and me that another result would be that the Government could not remove powers from CSOs. Equally, that power has now been taken from the Government by the addition of Ministers' signatures to the amendment. That is not a worry for me. I suspect that if a particular power turned out to be hugely controversial or unworkable, chief constables would be reluctant to use it and it would wither on the vine. We are talking about adding powers to CSOs and, under the circumstances, it is right that that matter should be brought back before the House for discussion.
	Incidentally, I have no objection to the proposal to help in the guiding of heavy loads and so on. That seems to be eminently sensible. I am grateful that we are reaching agreement on such a major matter. I am happy to welcome the Government's admission and I assume that there will not be a Division on this matter.

Angela Watkinson: I rise to support the removal of clause 45 from the Bill. The clause seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to add to, amend or repeal the powers and duties specified in schedules 4 and 5. Schedule 4 relates to powers exercisable by police civilians, most of which I would be quite happy to see repealed; I would not mind that element of the Bill staying in. However, the idea of enabling the Secretary of State to add to or amend those powers fills me with horror.
	I hope to speak in more detail tomorrow on CSOs when part 1 of the Bill is debated. I have grave reservations about giving the powers of a constable in uniform to anyone other than a fully trained constable. For that reason alone, I support the omission of clause 45.

George Osborne: It would be a shame to let this moment pass so quickly and not to dwell on the fact that we have persuaded the Government to climb down on this matter, which the Minister did with considerable eloquence and style. I have been trawling through the Committee reports and, unfortunately, there is no "killer quote"; that is unlike the "killer quotes" made by the Prime Minister while speaking on the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994. I pay tribute to the Minister for that.
	I also pay tribute to the House of Lords for raising the issue. The Lords had the power in the Division Lobby, but my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) had the power of oratory to persuade the Government. It would be tempting to divide the House and watch Labour Members who served on the Committee vote for something against which they all voted two weeks ago. Sadly, I am not sure whether there is a single person in the House who would provide a Teller for the other side in a Division.
	The serious point made in Committee and in the House of Lords was that, after all the controversy about the powers that CSOs would have—and about CSOs themselves—it was wrong for the Home Secretary simply to add to those powers, despite the Government making certain concessions, including on the power of detention and arrest. However, it would have been wrong to give the Home Secretary that power.
	There is a division of opinion both in the House and in the police force as to whether CSOs will work or not. We should wait and see, and the removal of the clause will at least give us a safeguard. If there is a feeling that the powers of CSOs need to be increased, the Government must come back to the House for a proper debate and not use the unsatisfactory statutory instrument procedure; they must use primary legislation.
	The point has been made that the Home Office always has so many Bills going through at any one time that there will not be a problem in finding parliamentary time. It is not as if the Minister comes from one of those obscure Departments that are always desperately looking for a slot in the Queen's Speech. No doubt there will be many slots for the Minister and the Home Secretary.
	I welcome the climbdown, and I hope it is a foretaste of things to come tomorrow. We will wait and see.

Mark Francois: I would like to spend a few moments dwelling on tonight's enjoyable occurrence—the withdrawal of clause 45. It is particularly appropriate to welcome a change of heart by the Government in a week when 13 statutory instruments are being rammed through the House. I am pleased to see that, in a week during which we see such evidence of government by statutory instrument by the Labour party, provisions are being taken out of this Bill that would have allowed the Government to use statutory instruments to widen the powers of community support officers. There is a delightful irony there, if I might put it like that.
	Among rank-and-file officers, there was more concern about the new institution of CSOs than about almost any other element in the Bill. To put it at its bluntest, there was concern among regular police officers that they might have to spend a lot of their time protecting the CSOs as they attempted to carry out their duties, thus diverting regular police officers from carrying out other important tasks.
	My personal view is that, rather than pushing the CSO agenda, it would have been better to have provisions in the Bill to boost the position of special constables, with whom the regular police are used to working. Special constables are volunteers whose hearts are fully in the job and who do a tremendous service to all members of the public. The numbers of special constables have declined considerably under this Government. There were about 20,000 special constables in 1993; there were some 19,000 in 1997, when Labour took office; now, there are fractionally over 12,000. That is a gigantic drop. Many are leaving because they are demoralised by the way in which their service is being run by a Labour Government. Surely it would have been better to reinforce the special constabulary in a proactive and helpful manner, and to let it work with the police, rather than bringing in an entirely new type of officer.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) ably pointed out, we will have to wait and see whether this experiment works. Like many other Opposition Members, I have reservations about it—as, indeed, do many professional police officers. I am delighted that the Government have given way on this aspect of the Bill, at least, but would that they had not come up with this idea in the first place.

Kevan Jones: Somewhat ironically, the Conservatives' comments reveal the true nature of their opposition. As two such contributions have shown, they are against community support officers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) nods, but in my constituency CSOs will be welcomed. In Stanley, our experiment with community safety wardens has proved very popular, and I am sure that CSOs will prove likewise.
	The Government have taken a very practical approach to ensure that the Bill is enacted. It is clear that an alliance has been forged between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on this issue, but the public should take note of the fact that this Government are not simply talking about making communities much safer; they are putting in place provisions to achieve that end. The Opposition have nitpicked and gloated, both today and in Committee.

Nick Hawkins: As the Minister acknowledged, the reality is that agreement was reached on 98 per cent. of the Bill. There were only one or two contentious points—points of substance—one of which the Government conceded, so it is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to speak of Opposition nitpicking.

Kevan Jones: I would be happy if the Conservatives had made it clear in Committee and on the Floor of the House that they are against CSOs—the hon. Member for Upminster did so a moment ago—but instead they are trying to neuter them. It is clear that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is not convinced that CSOs will be effective, but I am and so are the Government, who want to ensure that communities are made safer. The Opposition should have the courage of their convictions and say that they are against CSOs, rather than trying to neuter them.

Mark Francois: Rank-and-file police officers are unable to speak in this House, but we are. We are not nitpicking; we are simply articulating the concerns expressed to us by several such officers in our constituencies. They earn their living as police officers, and they are seriously concerned about whether this idea will work. We are representing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is moving outside the strict terms of the amendment that we are discussing. As we have another group of amendments to discuss and a limited amount of time, it would help the House if we could focus exactly on the amendment before us.

Kevan Jones: I find it strange that Conservatives are now acting as the trade union officials of police authorities. I welcome CSOs and so will my community. This Government should get a lot of credit for their introduction, but the Opposition will claim that credit, or—once they prove popular—they will say that they thought that they would work. We shall also see the usual double standards from the Liberal Democrats. I support the amendment, in the sense that we need to get the Bill passed.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. I regret the sentiments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who accuses Conservatives of gloating: this subject is wholly above such pettiness.

George Osborne: Absolutely.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I also resent the idea that the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) suggest that he is acting as some sort of trade union official. The hon. Member for North Durham, the Minister and others—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not heeding my advice.

Patrick Mercer: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall stick rigidly to the subject.
	I should like to add my support for the withdrawal of clause 45, and to point out that Nottinghamshire constabulary has broadly welcomed its withdrawal. I should also point out that I spoke to those policemen not as a trade union official, but as their Member of Parliament. Despite what was said in Committee, all of them—

Kevan Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman asked those of his constituents who are ordinary members of the public whether they are in favour of CSOs and safer communities?

Patrick Mercer: Yes, I have, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to point out my assiduousness in doing so. Naturally, my constituents are concerned about safety, but they are somewhat concerned and confused about the nature of CSOs. The policemen to whom I have spoken welcome the withdrawal of the clause. They view this as an opportunity for CSOs to take to the streets and, if they prove successful, perhaps to grow into the sort of institution—I am thinking of traffic wardens—that we all know and may not like, but which we certainly respect. It is not a question of gloating; they regard this as a common-sense measure, which I like to think Opposition Members have persuaded the Government to adopt.
	I am grateful to the Minister for showing enormous common sense in respect of this clause, and I add my support to the amendment.

Vernon Coaker: I support the amendment, but I am disappointed that we have reached this compromise. It is clear that the amendment is necessary simply to ensure that the Bill is enacted. Much of the antisocial behaviour legislation that we pass gives rise to problems with flexibility. We repeatedly have to return to such issues, saying that we need to enact primary legislation. The point of the clause was to give flexibility, so that, if necessary, the Secretary of State could regulate and change community support officers' powers to tackle antisocial behaviour.
	If the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and others do not want CSOs in their areas because they believe that they will not work, I am happy to have them in mine. CSOs will provide a further option in the range available in tackling antisocial behaviour. It is important to note that, because the legislation will work in an unprecedented way, CSOs to some extent will not prove as effective as we would like.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Vernon Coaker: We will therefore have to return to the matter and make the necessary changes through primary legislation. Our constituents will say, "Why hasn't the House allowed CSOs the flexibility to use their powers on the street in such a way that they can tackle antisocial behaviour?"

Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman may be missing the point somewhat. It is not so much that people oppose CSOs but that—in my experience of my constituents and members of the police force—they are cautious about the proposals. We do not understand them fully, and that is why we welcome the withdrawal of the clause.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to defend that position. It is a reasonable position to take, and Conservative Front Benchers also take a reasonable position, although they seek to decry the position that I take. My point is that because the Home Secretary will not have the flexibility that the original provisions provided, the CSOs will be introduced with curtailed powers. With the amendment, if we wish to change that, we will need primary legislation to do so. That is wrong and we will unnecessarily deny CSOs the flexibility that they should have.

John Denham: I am pleased to receive such support for a Government amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) have made excellent contributions to the debate. It is a matter of sadness that some of the opposition to the provisions has stemmed from opposition to the whole concept of CSOs, rather than the merits of clause 100. The provisions were examined by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not find them offensive in procedural terms. It was always the case that the flexibility we sought would have been exercised subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring positive votes in both Houses of Parliament.
	It is a great shame that the drive to undermine the concept of CSOs, which has been so common among the Opposition, has led to opposition to the provisions. None the less, I want the Bill to make progress so that we see real CSOs out there in communities, including some exercising the full powers that they will have.

James Paice: I wish to reaffirm on the record, so that no one is under any illusion, the fact that the official Opposition do not oppose CSOs. It is true that with a blank sheet of paper we would have made different proposals for providing extra help for the police. However, we have never and will never oppose the use of civilians in assisting the police. The only debate has been about the range of their powers, and that will be the subject of tomorrow's debate. We do not oppose CSOs, nor giving them some powers: we are concerned about the range of their powers, and that is why we have opposed these provisions.

John Denham: In tomorrow's debate, we will see just how many Opposition Members support their Front Benchers in that position. The tone of many contributions has not been in line with those remarks. However, for practical reasons, we have agreed to remove these provisions from the Bill and perhaps we could now move on to the last group of amendments.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 103
	 — 
	Short title, commencement and extent

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 101, line 22, at beginning insert—
	'Sections (Scottish sex offender orders) and (Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland) and'—[Mr. Denham.]

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 101, line 40, leave out "96(3)" and insert "96".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Continued deployment of traffic wardens—
	'Police authorities shall continue to appoint persons to discharge, in aid of the police, functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of, or enforcement of the law relating to, traffic or stationary vehicles unless—
	(a) notwithstanding regulations under Part VIII of the Road Traffic Regulations Act, the police authority passes a resolution by 1st January 2004 not to continue deploying traffic wardens; and
	(b) that police authority informs the chief officer of police for that police force and the Secretary of State of its decision.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 35 and 58.
	Amendment No. 100, in schedule 4, page 148, line 41, at end insert—'Traffic warden powers—
	(14) Where a designation in this paragraph applies to any person that person shall have all the powers of traffic wardens under—
	(a) the Traffic Wardens Order 1970 (SI 1958);
	(b) the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
	(c) the Road Traffic Act 1991; and
	(d) the Traffic Wardens Amendment Order 1993 (SI 1334).'.
	Government amendment No. 59.

John Denham: I mentioned this group of amendments earlier. Under current legislation, only the police have a general power to stop vehicles and only the police and traffic wardens—in this sense, traffic wardens means those employed by police authorities—have a power to direct traffic. That means that police have to be employed for such purposes as stopping vehicles for emissions tests and escorting abnormal loads, even though their other powers are not required. That is not the best use of police time.
	Traffic wardens already have a power to direct traffic. Clause 44 removes restrictions on their power to stop, which will enable them to undertake escorting duties. The amendments clarify the fact that their power to stop includes a power to stop vehicles for tests of their roadworthiness and compliance with construction and use regulations. We will also, by these amendments, give CSOs and accredited persons a limited power to stop vehicles and direct traffic. The power will be solely for the same escorting and testing purposes. The amendments will allow local authority traffic wardens to be given the power to stop traffic for those specific purposes. For the avoidance of doubt, I should emphasise that it will not be necessary to confer on any such local authority traffic wardens any of the other powers that may or may not be conferred on other accredited persons within the force area. They could be accredited and trained only in the use of the power to stop traffic.
	The amendments will reduce the number of occasions on which the police have to be diverted from other important tasks to help other agencies and road hauliers, and to carry out work unrelated to crime and public order. That will also benefit the other agencies and hauliers, since they will no longer have to wait on the availability of police, who might then be withdrawn at short notice for more urgent operational duties. That is much less likely to happen with traffic wardens, CSOs and accredited persons. The accredited persons may in fact be the employees of another interested party—for example, the Vehicle Inspectorate—if they have been so accredited by a chief officer of police under the provisions of the Bill. The amendments will free up police time for crime reduction, facilitate the enforcement of other legislation and promote road safety.
	Amendment No. 100 would extend all traffic wardens' powers to CSOs. The Government amendments will give certain, tightly defined traffic powers to CSOs such as the power to stop vehicles to help other agencies in particular circumstances. That is not the same as giving all traffic wardens' powers to CSOs. However, if it were desirable locally to ensure that CSOs exercised the full powers of traffic wardens, that could be achieved without amendment No. 100, either by designating someone who is already a traffic warden as a CSO, or appointing a CSO as a traffic warden. We have preferred to add some limited specific powers for traffic wardens to those available to CSOs.

Nick Hawkins: We think that it is sensible for the Government to provide the opportunity for such tasks as the escorting of exceptional loads to be performed by people other than the police. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance about the level of extra training for those undertaking those tasks. We are conscious that those who perform the specialist role of traffic police, many of whom I have worked with in my previous career at the Bar, have particular experience. The issue has been raised on several occasions, especially in the other place by Earl Attlee, who has particular expertise on the matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the extra training that may be available.
	With great respect to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and his colleagues, we agree with the Minister that the proposals in the Liberal Democrats' amendment can be achieved without amending the Bill. We would be slightly concerned by the suggestion that anybody who is appointed as a CSO will automatically have all the powers that are currently given to traffic wardens, because that might lead to a confusion of roles. We do not intend that the Bill should create a new category of traffic wardens, and while I understand the sensible motivation behind new clause 8 and amendment No. 100, it is not necessarily the right approach.

Norman Baker: Confusion is the issue, and we have tabled new clause 8 and amendment No. 100 to try to avoid it. The reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) can be found at paragraph 49 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which states:
	"It is, of course, important that the public are not confused by the introduction of CSOs and community safety accreditation schemes. For this reason we want the public to be able to distinguish between police officers, CSOs and members of accredited community safety schemes. The uniform worn by CSOs will make it clear that they are members of the police service, whilst, as is the case with many neighbourhood or street warden schemes, accredited people will probably wear a more casual uniform. In any case, accredited people will be required to wear a badge . . . which identifies them as members of an accredited scheme." 7.30 pm
	Confused? I am. The Government are going to put on our streets special constables who will look like police officers. There is no problem with that, but there will also be CSOs, whose powers will vary from area to area, and they might not even exist in some areas. There will also be accredited officers, who may wear a badge, in addition to their Tesco badges or whatever else they happen to wear. Their powers will also vary from area to area. There will also be local authority traffic wardens, with different powers in different areas.
	I drew attention to that confusion on Second Reading, as that is what we want to avoid. Respect for this country's policing system requires that that system commands respect among the public. People must be clear about the powers of officers, and be able to recognise immediately what sort of officer a person is.
	At the moment, there is a clear distinction between police officers and traffic wardens, but that clarity will be lost if many new categories of officer are introduced. That will lead to confusion, given that CSOs in different parts of the country will have different powers, if they have them at all. New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 would remove that uncertainty.
	Furthermore, we must ensure that the people on our streets are deployed to maximum effect. The Government's intention is to ensure that police officers are not wasted, and that they are not called to deal with trivial matters that could be dealt with by others.
	How could it be wrong for traffic wardens on the street to be able to deal with relatively low-grade matters that could be dealt with by a CSO? We suggest that traffic wardens ought to be able to deal with such matters as if they were CSOs. If they are not going to be able to deal with abandoned vehicles or youngsters with alcohol, for example, they will presumably have to call out a CSO. The Government have stated that they want to avoid that duplication of effort, which is a consequence of the proposals in the Bill.
	New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 would allow police authorities to decide whether they wanted to rationalise the problem, or whether they wanted to make their employees more effective by giving them the same powers as CSOs. That would also ensure greater understanding of those powers among the public.
	I suspect that the Minister will not accept new clause 8 and amendment No. 100. If so, he will be saying that he wants a plethora of people with different powers and that he wants duplication, with the result that people on the street will not be allowed to deal with offences with which they are capable of dealing. I hope that he will reflect on the matter.
	I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should like, at the appropriate juncture, to have a vote on new clause 8, as Liberal Democrat Members consider the matter to be important.
	The Government amendments seem eminently sensible. I have no problem with them. I am happy to support them.

John Denham: I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I am somewhat perplexed by his determination to divide the House on new clause 8, as it attempts to give to police authorities a discretion that they already enjoy. Perhaps the intention was different, but it seems the oddest thing to divide the House on. However, that is the hon. Gentleman's privilege, of course.
	I turn now to the questions of training. It is the responsibility of the chief officer to ensure that people such as accredited officers and CSOs have had the necessary levels of training. As I explained in general terms to the Committee, the training authority Centrex will help to advise on the necessary levels of training, taking into account the competencies required for each of the CSO skills.
	The Committee debated the question of standardisation. I have made it clear that the Government recognise that there is a choice to be made. It is undeniable that we are introducing a new element into the policing of our communities and streets. The question is this: do we attempt, before a single CSO has been employed or a single organisation accredited, to predict exactly which set of powers and responsibilities will be right, or do we allow the greater flexibility—what is essentially a menu approach—represented by schedules 4 and 5?
	Both options can be argued, but I believe that we shall do better to allow that flexibility at the start. We should allow chief officers, after the necessary consultations, to design schemes that meet the problems of policing, antisocial behaviour and traffic management in their areas.
	I believe that, over time, the tendency will be towards some consensus on how best to meet the needs of particular communities. I am sure that professional best practice will take us in that direction. The hon. Member for Lewes raises an important point, but he wants us to leap ahead to a time in the future when there is no doubt about the most appropriate menu of powers. I honestly do not think that we have reached that point yet, and I believe that we will have to live with a little variation between areas until we have been able to establish how best to deploy and use CSOs and accredited community safety officers.

Annette Brooke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is seeking to catch my eye, I advise her that perhaps it would have been more orderly for her to have done so earlier. I can of course call her, but the Minister has already replied to the debate.
	Amendment agreed to

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 164, line 5, leave out "(4)(b)".
	No. 61, in page 164, line 43, at end insert—
	'Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
	7A In Article 8(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/ 1908 (N.I. 27)) (limitations on rehabilitation under Order etc.), after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
	"(bb) in any proceedings on an application for an order under Article 6 or 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) or in any appeal against the making of such an order;".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 8
	 — 
	Repeal

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 170, line 32, at end insert—
	'Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 (c. 42) Section 5.'.
	—[Mr. Denham.]
	Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
	Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice and guidance on a matter. In the edition of the Liverpool Echo published yesterday, 8 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is quoted as saying, about the Bill:
	"We shall be there, ready to object whenever and wherever it crops up . . . It will be guerrilla warfare."
	Would not the use of guerrilla warfare tactics in a debate such as this be distinctly unparliamentary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I see anything in the nature of what the hon. Gentleman and I might consider to be guerrilla tactics, I am sure that the powers of the Chair will be adequate to deal with them.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	As a Merseyside MP, I am proud to be sponsoring the Mersey Tunnels Bill on behalf of the Merseyside passenger transport authority. The proposals for this Bill were the subject of widespread consultation on Merseyside, in line with Cabinet Office guidance, and the House will wish to know that a formal statement from the promoters is available in the Vote Office.
	For the benefit of hon. Members who may not be familiar with the role of PTAs, there are seven of them in Great Britain—Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Strathclyde, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire. They are comprised of locally elected councillors nominated by the district, city and borough councils in the former metropolitan counties. All the PTAs are currently led by Labour party supporters.
	Passenger transport authorities are accountable to the local electorate and set the transport policy framework for their respective areas. The policies are then implemented by the full-time staff of the passenger transport executives. The PTEs were the creation of a Labour Government under the Transport Act 1968, a piece of legislation masterminded by my late and noble Friend, Baroness Castle.
	All PTAs and PTEs are required to ensure the quality and availability of public transport services in their area. That includes giving financial support for the local rail network, funding socially necessary bus services, managing local concessionary fare schemes and providing public transport information. They have played a truly extraordinary role in improving public transport in our great metropolitan areas outside London, and deserve far more recognition than they currently receive.
	On Merseyside, the PTA, which is promoting the Bill, and the PTE have been fused together to operate under one banner—Merseytravel. That body is the principal architect of the Merseyside local transport plan, drawn up in partnership with other public and private sector interests in the area, in line with the Government's 1998 White Paper and the subsequent Transport Act 2000. Merseytravel has been awarded the status of a centre of excellence by the Government in both integrated transport and integrated transport planning—an accolade of which I am extremely proud.
	The Bill fits exactly into the context of the Merseyside local transport plan, which is a serious attempt to create a holistic solution to the current and anticipated needs of both Merseyside and the wider travel-to-work area. The plan was drawn up after full and thorough consultation with the five district councils on Merseyside and—importantly—with neighbouring authorities, such as the Cheshire and Lancashire county councils.
	It is a further mark of Merseytravel's success that the Government are in the process of transferring from the Strategic Rail Authority to Merseytravel the full panoply of powers over the local rail network. That change, too, is endorsed by Cheshire and Lancashire county councils. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has played a leading role in making that change, which will give a unique degree of local control of the heavy rail network to the community that it serves.
	The five local authorities represented on the Merseyside PTA are Knowsley borough council, Liverpool city council, Sefton borough council—in my constituency—St. Helens borough council and Wirral borough council. My right hon. and hon. Friends should know that two of those authorities are currently held by Labour; two are hung, but Labour councillors are in leading roles; and one is led by the Liberal Democrats. All five support the Bill.
	Merseytravel itself has a majority of Labour councillors, so I point out to my hon. Friends that the Bill is being promoted by a Labour-controlled authority, established by Labour, carrying out the policies of the Labour Government.
	As well as carrying out the normal duties of a PTA and a PTE, Merseytravel owns and manages the famous Mersey ferries and the two Mersey road tunnels that run under the river between Liverpool and Wirral. The Queensway tunnel, between Liverpool and Birkenhead, opened in 1934, nearly 60 years ago. The twin bores of the Kingsway tunnel, between Liverpool and Wallasey, opened in 1971 and 1974.
	The Mersey tunnels are an important strategic transport asset for Merseyside. They are the only estuarial crossing in Britain to be found at the heart of a conurbation.

Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Perhaps my hon. Friend would bear with me.
	The tunnels provide an important route for commerce, and commuting and leisure travel between the Wirral and Liverpool and for journeys further afield.

Andrew Miller: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point, as it is a recognition that we are dealing with journeys that go much further than Merseyside. In the light of that, does she agree that as I represent constituents in Ellesmere Port and Neston it would be appropriate for me and people such as me to be part of the consultation process under best-value legislation?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I understand his motivation, but I stress that the five Merseyside authorities bear the cost of the tunnels so the future of the tunnels is largely at their discretion.
	Although the tunnels are the responsibility of the Merseyside PTA, research has shown that the tunnels are used by only 3 per cent. of the people of Merseyside. Car ownership in the area is relatively low by national standards, and I am pleased to say that its citizens are far more reliant on public transport than those in most conurbations. As I shall explain, it is questionable on grounds of fairness whether the 97 per cent. of Merseysiders who do not use the tunnels should be called on to subsidise them through their council tax when additional financial support is needed. I repeat: 97 per cent. of Merseysiders are called on to subsidise tunnels that they do not use.
	The Mersey tunnels are an important strategic transport asset for Merseyside. They are the only estuarial crossings in Britain to be found at the heart—

Stephen Hesford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Please bear with me.
	As I have already pointed out, the tunnels provide an important route for commerce, and commuting and leisure travel between the Wirral and Liverpool and for journeys further afield.
	Merseytravel has an obligation to put the tunnels on a sound financial footing, to invest in them to ensure that they operate at the highest practicable levels of safety, and to provide alternative public transport services for those increasingly congested river crossings. That is what the Bill does.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not privatise the tunnels in any way—despite what some hon. Members have been led to believe. It is true—

Robert Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me while I finish this part of my speech.
	It is true that a previous Mersey Tunnels Bill envisaged letting the operation of the tunnels on a long-term concession to a private sector operator. At that time, Merseytravel saw that as the only way to achieve the modernisation of working practices essential to the spirit and letter of the Labour Government's best-value principles. The proposal was scrapped by the Labour leadership of Merseytravel, which is why the current Bill is but a third of the size of the original.
	A year ago, the political leadership of Merseytravel offered the five trade unions representing the 300 or so employees of the tunnels the opportunity to be involved in negotiations on the modernisation of working practices while remaining in the public sector. Such modernisation is exactly what the TUC claims is the alternative to private sector involvement in public services. Thus far, however, the trade unions have not attended a single meeting to take that process forward; instead, four of the five unions and the north-west region of the TUC have chosen to petition against the Bill, even though it poses no threat whatever to their members.

Robert Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I must make progress.
	The exception was Unison, which has written to its members who serve in this place urging them to support the Bill. It is a source of great regret to Merseytravel that the trade unions did not take up the offer to negotiate the creation of a modern public service. Nevertheless, Merseytravel remains fully committed to the principle of public sector operation and is still ready to enter negotiations with the trade unions at any time. The Bill is not about privatisation.
	Having set out the role of Merseytravel and clarified what the Bill does not do, I shall explain what it is actually about. First, it is designed to put the Mersey tunnels on a sound financial footing. Since the abolition of the Merseyside county council by the Conservative Government in 1986, Merseytravel has been responsible for the management, operation and maintenance of the Mersey tunnels.
	All Labour Members accept that the sound management of our public finances is necessary if we are to raise the quality of public services. In the case of Mersey tunnels, that ambition is impossible under the current legislation. They are financed through the collection of tolls from the drivers of cars and other vehicles that pass through them. Current legislation stipulates that toll revenue must equal only the cost of operating, refurbishing and financing the tunnels. The tolls must not explicitly produce any surplus revenue that can be aggregated in anticipation of the need for future investment. That means, in reality and actuality, that Merseytravel can seek to raise the tolls only after the tunnels have been pushed into deficit by rising maintenance and other costs.
	The process of raising the tolls to cover additional costs can take up to two years. That is because Merseytravel has to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for authority to raise the tolls. He, in turn, is obliged to call a public inquiry if objectors oppose the rise so requested, and they inevitably do. The toll revision process can take up to two years and will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Therefore, the elected councillors of Merseytravel find that they have responsibility for the finances of the tunnels with no power to finance operating losses other than through the levying of the five district councils until a public inquiry, which could take two years, has been completed and the Secretary of State has made his decision. That is exactly what has taken place in the past and it is what the Bill seeks to avoid in future.
	The last time that the Merseyside PTA was compelled to request financial assistance from the five district councils for the Mersey tunnels was in 1992. Hon. Members may well ask whether that request was made to advance public transport on Merseyside. The answer is absolutely not. The finance was used to subsidise the private cars, vans and lorries using the Mersey tunnels. This ridiculous arrangement resulted in £28 million having to be paid to the tunnels by the five Merseyside district councils and, hence, by council tax payers. That debt is still being paid out of income from tolls. The authority in my constituency is owed £5 million. The 97 per cent. of Merseysiders who do not use the tunnels subsidise the 3 per cent. who do. Should Parliament fail to enact this Bill, the beast of 1992 will again pick the pocket and purse of every council tax payer on Merseyside. Some of our authorities can least afford that.
	Moreover, users of the tunnels resident outside the conurbation have been immune from any additional burden whatever. Research has shown that as many as 10 per cent. of the users of the tunnels reside outside Merseyside and therefore never incur the consequence of the debt that accrues to the facilities.
	I fully acknowledge the contribution that commuters from outside Merseyside make to the economy of the county, especially those "workers by brain", as we used to call them in the Labour party, who are employed in the burgeoning financial, technical and academic sectors of Liverpool's economy. We do not doubt their contribution, but we wish to make the situation more equitable for all concerned. Can it be right that the council tax payers of the conurbation, many of whom are on very low earnings compared to the outside commuters, should be called upon to subsidise the travel-to-work costs of those able to reside in the more affluent shires? I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially those representing constituencies in London and other great cities, whether their constituents would be prepared to countenance that.
	Clearly, Merseytravel is under an obligation to its constituents to put the tunnels on a sound financial footing so that there is no need for future subsidies from the council tax. We have already paid far too much, and we are already owed a great deal. The Bill, which is promoted by Labour-led Merseytravel, seeks to right that wrong. It would reconfigure the economics of the madhouse in such a way that neither the tunnels nor importantly the council tax payers on Merseyside would be forced to go into debt. That has been the reality for some of the authorities concerned.
	A resolution to the problem is even more pressing in the light of a recent report on safety in the Mersey tunnels. An urgent need now exists for additional funding for investment in the tunnels. Let me explain. In April this year, the Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil Club—the German motorists' organisation—published its latest report on safety in 30 road tunnels throughout Europe. The report was commissioned by, and carried out in conjunction with, a range of European Union organisations, including Britain's Automobile Association. Merseytravel volunteered to co-operate with the study, enabling ADAC to examine the Mersey tunnels. The report awarded good marks to the Kingsway tunnel between Wallasey and Liverpool, which came seventh overall in Europe. That reflected, in large part, the relatively modern design from the 1960s and 1970s. However, the Queensway tunnel between Birkenhead and Liverpool scored less highly, rating as acceptable and coming 21st out of 30. That was mainly a result of the way in which it was designed and constructed in the 1920s and 1930s.
	The Queensway tunnel's weaknesses include it having only one tube with oncoming traffic, no emergency lanes or lay-bys, narrow traffic lanes, inadequate emergency walkways, 1,500 m gaps between emergency exits and no automatic detection of traffic congestion. The emergency telephones are not soundproofed, the fire ventilation system is not automatically activated and the tunnel is not automatically closed in the event of a fire. Merseytravel has examined the report in detail and has provisionally costed the works recommended to bring both tunnels up to European safety standards at about £8.5 million.
	Merseytravel has long anticipated that the need would arise for substantial expenditure in the Queensway tunnel. However, the ADAC report, following on from a number of serious fires in road tunnels on the mainland of Europe in the past few years, has now produced a compelling need to act swiftly and in additional areas.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend refers to an extremely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I encourage the hon. Gentleman to address the Chair?

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the ADAC report, which I have read in great detail along with reports from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other United States studies. The money must be spent whether we have the Bill or not. Therefore, does she not think that it is a bit ingenuous of the Bill to talk in terms of using resources to develop other passenger transport services when, for years to come, any surplus that is generated by the tunnels will have to be used to invest in safety?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised that point. If he bears with me, I shall address it shortly.
	The money must obviously be found and the PTA has recommended that tolls be raised to meet the high costs of refurbishing the tunnels. The alternative—which is to ask local council tax payers to foot the bill, possibly by cutting spending on other services—is simply not on. However, as a result of the arcane procedures to which I referred earlier, raising tolls means a public inquiry that may take up to two years and that will also cost the council tax payers who currently subsidise the tunnels.
	I argue strongly that the PTA must be given the authority to take whatever action is necessary to meet the highest safety standards as quickly as possible. That would be achieved by enactment of the Bill, which would allow the PTA to increase tolls in line with the retail prices index.
	That in turn would allow tolls to rise by 10p next April, from £1.20 per car to £1.30, thereby enabling the safety improvements in the tunnels to get under way almost immediately. Merseytravel envisages that all the additional revenue raised from the indexation of tolls would be spent exclusively on improvements to the tunnels in the first four years or so after the Bill's enactment; which brings me neatly on to its second main purpose: improving Merseyside's public transport network.
	As I said, the Bill contains powers to allow tolls to rise in line with the retail prices index. Thanks to the Labour Government's sound economic policies, the RPI is at an historic low, and the estimated increase for motorists using the tunnel is 10p over three years. Given that the fares for crossing the Mersey by any other means—train, bus or ferry—rise at least in line with inflation, it is eminently reasonable that motorists should be subject to a comparable increase.
	It is important to know that, although the Bill empowers Merseytravel to increase tolls in line with the RPI, it would not require Merseytravel to exercise that power. Its use is at the discretion of the elected members of the PTA. For example, if economic circumstances are such that a toll increase would be harmful to the Merseyside region, the councillors could choose not to apply it either in full or in part. Users would be protected from an increase above the level of the RPI, under agreements similar to those currently in force. In very exceptional circumstances, Merseytravel would be able to apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in tolls above the level of inflation.

Christopher Chope: In deploying arguments about the financial case, will the hon. Lady address the concerns of the district auditor, who was unable to get access to sufficient management information to assess whether the figures produced by Merseytravel were accurate?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but it is a matter for the authority and the auditors. I note his concern and will write to him in due course.
	Merseytravel would have to justify its request for an increase in tolls above the level of inflation to the Secretary of State, as it does now—for example, on the grounds of emergency maintenance—and the Secretary of State would continue to have the power to hold a public inquiry. Having provided for indexation, the Bill would allow Merseytravel to use creatively any surplus toll income over and above the cost of operating the tunnels and maintaining them to the highest safety standards. Merseytravel would be empowered to use the surplus to fund improvements to public transport, enabling the Merseyside local transport plan, which the Government commended, to be delivered faster.
	It is necessary to deliver these improvements at the earliest opportunity so that we provide alternatives to the car for those very people who believe that they have no choice but to drive through the tunnels. The tunnels are operating at, or near, capacity at peak times. As the economy of Merseyside continues to recover and grow, the need for travel will similarly expand. Shall we stand aside and allow the tunnels to become even more congested, causing tailbacks and pollution in Wallasey, Birkenhead and Liverpool city centre; or shall we act now to manage demand by modestly increasing tolls in line with inflation and providing genuine public transport alternatives?

Colin Pickthall: I refer my hon. Friend to the front page of the statement by the promoters, which states:
	"Merseytravel sees the level of tunnels' tolls as a device to help manage traffic growth in the tunnels, by making sure that tolls keep pace with inflation".
	We know that wages keep pace with—and indeed exceed—inflation. We also know—this is confirmed in the document—that the cost of motoring has been decreasing for some time. Why would a toll increase that is linked to the RPI reduce or even manage traffic in the tunnels?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Clearly the dynamics and utilisation of the tunnel are a matter for considerable debate. We can project the use of the tunnels on existing figures, which suggest that it will increase to an unbearable extent. I do not believe that the measures are onerous. As my hon. Friend has said, the cost of travel is decreasing. For a small increase in Merseytravel's fees, we will introduce something that might not only contain the level of traffic growth, but offer viable alternative public transport opportunities.
	Let me outline some of the projects in the local transport plan which will benefit the Wirral and could be delivered quicker as a result of the Bill. They include: the transformation of the quality of bus services from Liverpool and Birkenhead in the A41 corridor to Eastham and Mill park via Bromborough, in the A552/A551 corridor to Heswall via Woodchurch road, and in the A553 corridor to West Kirby via Bidston and Upton; a major upgrade to the Birkenhead Hamilton square underground station, which is desperately needed; and the progressive upgrade of all Merseyrail stations in Wirral to offer an enhanced passenger waiting environment, including closed circuit television, which is in great demand, real-time passenger information, interactive help points, seating, and secure cycle storage, and the provision of better interchange opportunities with connecting bus services. Who would not want those services in the Wirral, and who would not want them now?
	The projects also include: electrification of the mid-Wirral diesel rail line between Bidston and Woodchurch; the creation of a major new multi-modal interchange and strategic park-and-ride at the new station close to the junction of the M53 and A552 at Woodchurch; a new station and a park-and-ride at Beechwood; a major refurbishment programme to the Merseyrail train fleet; an integrated ticketing system including smart cards; improvements to the main underground rail station in Liverpool city centre; and further investment in Merseyside ferries.
	A 10p increase in tunnel tolls every three years is a pretty small price to pay for the earlier delivery of that package of improvements, especially as tunnel users would help to fund measures that will provide them either with a real alternative or with a reduction in congestion if they must use the roads.

Frank Field: I intervene only because my hon. Friend admirably cited Birkenhead. I will support the Bill on Second Reading because there is much sense in the reforms that she proposes. Nevertheless, does she accept that some of us who support the Bill in principle may be more concerned, on Report, that moneys from the tolls will go to far distant areas in Merseyside and not to Birkenhead, Beechwood and Wirral, West, areas on which she cleverly concentrates when setting out the advantages? We would like to see all those reforms, but many of my constituents and I are less keen on a council tax increase to fund improvements to the far stretches of Merseyside, whose people never use the tunnel.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He will notice that none of the many improvements that I have cited will benefit Crosby.

Frank Field: Birkenhead was included though, was it not?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Birkenhead will benefit, as will many areas inside the Wirral, but much of Crosby will not. We have a list of priorities that need to be addressed, and the areas that I have identified clearly rank far higher than my own. The local transport plan is available for consultation and open for negotiation. I have expressed my concerns and aspirations, and I encourage my right hon. Friend to do the same. However, if I were in his place, I would be very grateful that at least some aspects of my kingdom had been referred to and that they were to have a definite opportunity to secure improvements in the short term—rather than the long term, as I fear it will be for some of us.
	On congestion, I point out to the House that the Bill empowers Merseytravel to carry out noise insulation works for about 200 homes near the Kingsway tunnel portals on the Wirral. The Bill will close a gap in the law which has prevented Merseytravel from providing that help in the past.

Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend share my happiness about that? The mistake allowed 200 houses in my constituency which directly abut the tunnel entrance to be plagued with noise for 30 years, and the inhabitants could have no relief because it would have been ultra vires to soundproof their houses. Does my hon. Friend understand how grateful my constituents are that the error has been rectified in the Bill? I shall support its Second Reading simply for that reason, but I share some of the worries expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about the distribution of other largesse.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is well understood on Merseyside how hard she has argued for significant support for the 200 homes directly affected by the problems associated with the Kingsway tunnel portals. I thank her in advance for her support for the Bill, which will make recompense available to the people who have been placed in that difficult position for many years. I am sure that all hon. Members receive complaints from constituents about noise levels at major road junctions. I am delighted that the Bill will enable the PTA to address such concerns.
	Many will benefit from the enactment of the Bill. First, the people of Merseyside will benefit. They are currently required to bear the financial burden of the tunnels, irrespective of whether they use them or even own a car. The current legislation effectively means that the tunnels must be operated at a loss, and the debt must be passed on to local authorities and thus to council tax payers before tolls can be raised to cover any deficit. The Bill corrects that anomaly.
	Secondly, the tunnel users will benefit. I referred earlier to the cost of meeting the recommendations of the ADAC report on tunnel safety. Without the guaranteed additional income generated by the Bill, tolls will in any event have to rise significantly to meet the £8.5 million cost of the additional safety works required to bring the tunnels up to the recommended European standards.
	Thirdly, those who use or would like to use public transport will be significant beneficiaries. Once operating and safety costs have been met, surplus revenue from the tolls will go towards accelerating the implementation of the local transport plan, benefiting tens of thousands of people on Merseyside. Motorists quite reasonably say that they will be persuaded to leave their vehicles at home only if public transport improves. The Bill will generate additional investment in local buses, trains and ferries, and give Merseyside motorists a genuine alternative, which they are currently denied.
	Fourthly, the environment and the quality of life for those living near the tunnel portals will also benefit. So too will the health of others in the region, particularly our young people. Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, despite a small population decrease on Merseyside, there was a 9.6 per cent. increase in traffic using the Mersey tunnels. The tunnels are now operating at 92 per cent. of capacity at peak times, and queueing times at the entrances in the morning peak have increased from approximately 20 minutes in 1991 to 45 minutes today, despite the use of additional contraflow lanes at peak times.
	The Bill is not anti-car or anti-motorist, but it reflects the growing awareness, in particular on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport, that public bodies have a duty to manage traffic growth. The increase in traffic noise and pollution at the portals of the Mersey tunnels affects some of the most deprived areas on Merseyside, where poor health is already experienced owing to a number of factors. Those areas naturally include several schools.
	I draw hon. Members' attention to research commissioned by the National Asthma Campaign which points to a conclusive link between car exhaust fumes and the growing incidence of asthma in children. The Bill is designed to manage traffic growth through modest toll increases and improvements to public transport. That can only be of benefit to the health of Merseyside children.
	Fifthly, business will benefit from the Bill. According to the Confederation of British Industry, traffic congestion costs the British economy £20 billion a year. In its progress report on the Government's 10-year transport plan, published on 24 June, the CBI explicitly warned that shirking difficult decisions on matters such as road tolls puts the Government's integrated transport policy at risk. A survey by Barclaycard earlier this year revealed the cost of congestion to industry throughout Merseyside and north Wales to be £700 per worker per year. In the 2001 "Small Business Watch—Transport Research" by Yellow Pages, a third of small firms in the north-west claimed that road congestion had a serious impact on their competitiveness. Managing traffic growth is good for business and good for Merseyside.
	I should now like to deal briefly with some of the arguments against the Bill. Some people claim that there is massive local opposition to the Bill. That is nonsense. A petition to Parliament opposing the Bill contained 251 signatures. Of the written representations to the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 950 were tear-off coupons from the Liverpool Echo and the Wirral Evening News.
	As I said earlier, the Bill has the full support of all five local authorities on Merseyside, as well as a number of public and other bodies including Transport 2000, which has petitioned the House in support of the Bill, and, significantly, Friends of the Earth. The Bill is backed by Unison and the railway union ASLEF. The latter has also petitioned the House in favour of the Bill.
	Opponents claim that Merseytravel should be seeking to cut the tunnels' operating costs rather than index- linking the tolls.

Robert Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: If my hon. Friend will bear with me—

Robert Wareing: I am indeed bearing with you.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Good. Perhaps my hon. Friend could bear with me a little longer.
	The tunnels are a 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year business. At £11.8 million a year, their operating costs are relatively modest. Even if there were cuts, that would do nothing to manage traffic growth or to generate additional revenue for safety improvements and public transport. In any case, like other public services, the tunnels are subject to the best value process, and that will continue irrespective of the Bill.
	It is claimed that index-linked tolls will damage local businesses. Given that earnings generally rise faster than prices, tolls linked to the RPI will fall in relation to average earnings; therefore the economic effect of index-linked tolls on commuter traffic and thus on employees in Liverpool will be, at worst, neutral. Finally, opponents claim that commuters have no alternative means of getting to work and accuse Merseytravel of holding them to ransom.

Edward O'Hara: Before my hon. Friend winds up, I would like to address a point made in a previous intervention. It has been suggested that the revenues from the proposed modest increase in tolls would result in users of the tunnel subsidising wider areas of Merseyside. Does she accept that, for more years than is fair, the constituents whom I represent have been subsidising the users of a tunnel that they themselves do not use in large numbers?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that valid and accurate observation. It is of course true, and it applies not only to his constituency but to many others on Merseyside.
	The Bill reflects the need to change an arcane and damaging piece of legislation which forces the Mersey tunnels to be operated at a loss before tolls can be increased, and which compels local authorities on Merseyside to pick up the tab in the meantime. It is combined with a real opportunity to improve safety in the tunnels, to manage traffic growth and to provide additional investment in public transport.
	I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to sponsor the Bill. I am proud to be associated with Merseyside passenger transport authority, which is chaired in an exemplary manner by Councillor Mark Dowd, who has spent the best years of his life trying to improve transport provision on Merseyside. His authority has been motivated by the single objective of trying to do all it can to improve transport opportunities and provision for all the people of Merseyside. The authority has been uniquely successful, but there is much more to be done.
	I hope that the House supports this sensible Bill, which is welcomed and needed by the vast majority of people on Merseyside. I commend it to the House.

John Pugh: I rise to speak about something that I have known all my life. I was driven through the Mersey tunnel as a child, anxiously looking up from the back seat of the car to see whether water would come in through the ceiling. That remains a residual fear even today, even though it has been explained to me—with drawings—why it is not a realistic likelihood. I recall there being traffic lights in the old tunnel, and the people of Liverpool proudly walking through the Kingsway tunnel when it was first opened. All my life I, as a Liverpudlian, have been proud that we have such excellent tunnels. I regard the tunnels as engineering marvels—structures of which we can be genuinely proud. Whenever I had visitors, I would make some excuse to take them through the tunnels—thus increasing by some measure the traffic congestion—because I wanted to display what is undoubtedly an engineering wonder.
	At that stage, I did not regard the tunnels as being remotely problematic. Only when I became a councillor did I realise the burden of substantial historic capital costs that falls on every council tax payer on Merseyside. I was a councillor during the period when the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) occupied a senior position on the same council. From 1998 to 1992, when we were both councillors on the same authority, the operating loss on the tunnels was £28 million. Both of us know what a substantial effect that loss had in terms of having to make cuts in the council's budget. Sorely needed services were not provided, and one of the reasons they could not be provided was the £28 million that should have been available for Merseyside but simply was not available.
	The loss on the tunnels represented a £28 million loss of services. It had to be made up in some way if we were not to cut services indefinitely, but it was funded by a range of people who had little connection with the tunnels.

Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify which year he is talking about? According to the accounts, there is only one year in which total expenditure was £28 million, and that was 1999–2000. Expenditure in all the other years was substantially less.

John Pugh: Anyone who pretends that there has been no substantial loss on the operating costs of the tunnel is not living in the real world. We could argue the figures indefinitely—the hon. Gentleman and I both have figures in front of us—but I genuinely believe that there was an operating loss that had an effect on services. However, even if the operating loss were only small, and not substantial, the fact remains that it has to be made up—elderly ladies in Speke, Crossens, Prescott and elsewhere have to play some part in making up the loss. In effect, such people are subsidising the haulier and the motorist.

Peter Kilfoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) might feel a little differently about the £28 million cumulative loss if he, and his local councillors in turn, had to explain where the transport precept was going? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend does not have to face that reality, unlike MPs representing the five boroughs on Merseyside?

John Pugh: It is not only MPs but councillors who every year have to deal with the Merseyside passenger transport authority precept and explain the basis on which it is calculated.
	The fact is that there was a loss—it happened—and there is nothing in the system as currently defined that can stop it happening again. Regardless of the details, the facts and the figures, what we have is a system of deficit financing that is cumbersome, unpredictable and incapable of dealing with a range of perfectly likely scenarios. Any long-term safety issues or requirement to meet new standards cannot be dealt with under the existing funding system. Environmental problems affecting people living near the tunnels increase as traffic increases, but they are not addressed in any way by the current funding regimes. The present system contains no mechanism to deal with major structural problems that might give rise to an emergency in the tunnels. There is no mechanism to deal with any change in fiscal rules, VAT treatment or interest rates.
	The system is absolutely inflexible, and it cannot guarantee that granny will not end up subsiding Eddie Stobart. I have nothing against Eddie Stobart—he is a very fine chap in his own way—but I see no reason why people who have no use for the tunnels should end up subsiding something that does not specifically concern them.
	Any council leader on Merseyside knows the yearly agony of trying to fix the budget while waiting for input from the Merseyside passenger transport authority. The PTA can make a substantial difference to what the council has to tell council tax payers, and to the taxpayers themselves. A feature of the system that has been identified year after year is its sheer unpredictability, and the tunnels and the various associated charges contribute to that unpredictability.

Joe Benton: To confirm the hon. Gentleman's comments, I well recall the many torturous hours spent in budget preparation in Sefton, and I have no doubt that other local authorities had the same experience. Does he agree that that experience of having to wait until the last minute before we could set a rate arose because it often depended on the Merseyside PTA levy? Does he agree that the Bill is motivated by the desire to modernise the system and overcome the arcane process that councillors on Merseyside still have to undergo?

John Pugh: I certainly do agree, and I am grateful for that intervention. In fairness, I have to say that sometimes budget negotiations within Sefton council were torturous for reasons that were not related to the MPTA, but that is another matter.
	It would be disingenuous, wrong, inaccurate and dishonest of supporters of the Bill to say that it is designed solely to establish a stable financial platform. If the Bill does that, that is in itself sufficient reason to support it, but I think it is designed to do other things, and it is fair to identify what they are.

Stephen Hesford: Perhaps, like me, the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to examine the Mersey Tunnels Bill briefing update produced by the Promoter of the Bill, Merseytravel. In no year since 1992–93 has there been an operating loss. The hon. Gentleman talked about stable financing, which is precisely what we have as a result of the increased tunnel toll in April 1992 and a further rise in November 1999. He is talking about history, which is not relevant to the position today.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman is slightly missing the point—he is a bit like someone who tries to persuade me not to take an umbrella tomorrow because it did not rain this afternoon. There is nothing in the present system to inhibit or prevent a loss, but the Bill includes a provision that leads one to believe that a loss is far less likely. As a loss is undesirable in principle, I support that provision.
	The Bill allows the people running the tunnels to create an operating surplus—I am not against that.

George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill seeks to acquire for people the power to increase tolls in line with inflation if necessary? His point is perfectly valid: if there is no need for an increase, the tolls will not necessarily go up; but if a rise is required, there is the power to increase the tolls appropriately.

John Pugh: The Bill provides the people running the tunnels with a tool to prevent a loss, should one be on the horizon. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would seriously claim that such an enterprise as the one operating the Mersey tunnels should never have an operating surplus in principle. Lots of tunnels across the world have a surplus, as do many traffic management schemes.

Robert Wareing: I am much obliged for the graciousness with which the hon. Gentleman gave way. Did he see in the Merseytravel briefing that there will be a surplus on the Mersey tunnel tolls by 2005, which could be hypothecated and used for other purposes? Is not that why the Freight Transport Association and the Automobile Association oppose the Bill?

John Pugh: I shall not explore the reasons why the AA opposes the Bill but, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made clear, if there is an operating surplus, it will be needed by the operators to meet considerable demands to comply with European safety requirements. I went through the tunnel as a child so it must, by definition, be fairly old and in need of substantial refurbishment. We need a system that enables us to tackle that. A key feature of the Bill is that it creates the possibility of integration with the local transport plan; it brings the tunnels into the frame so that we can achieve a coherent and sensible local transport plan. There is not a political party on the planet that does not support local transport plans that propose an integrated transport system. Rejecting the possibility of such a system is crass stupidity and against the spirit of the Government's own 10-year plan. It is simply not possible to have integrated transport nationally, but not locally.
	It is only sensible that a transport body should have the power and tools to secure economic prosperity, social inclusion and a wholesome environment. The body that we charge with the task of executing an integrated transport plan for Merseyside is the MPTA. What is there to fear? I do not understand the force of the objections to the Bill. The MPTA is a democratically elected body of people who have been nominated by their own councils because they know something about transport and have a grasp of the issues. The MPTA is not the haunt of slavering Trots, and it is not a bunch of misguided anoraks. I dare say its members have their faults. I know many of them personally, including Councillor Dowd who will acknowledge that he is by no means perfect in every respect. None the less, he is recognised for his vision, abilities and skill in determining what is needed on Merseyside, and has been nominated as transport personality of the year.

Stephen Hesford: It is a pleasure to intervene in this debate. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the same Councillor Dowd who was chair of the authority which sponsored the previous Bill, which would have privatised the management of the tunnels? Is that the same perspicacious person?

John Pugh: I understand the hon. Gentleman's confusion, as there are two well-known Councillor Dowds on Merseyside. However, it is the same Councillor Dowd.
	The MPTA, the Minister will concur, has received tangible praise from the Government for its vision, and for its ability to understand what might be required in a transport plan for Merseyside. It submitted a transport plan which was so good that the Government, most peculiarly, asked whether it wanted more money. It was given more money as it was thought to be able to spend it properly.
	The people sponsoring the Bill therefore have an acute idea of Merseyside's transport needs. Where is the danger in giving them a power that they need? Why the animus against some of the benefits that may flow from the Bill? The MPTA predicts that there will be £2.5 million of additional revenue. That figure may vary, and may be a little less, but even if it were only £1 million, that would make an appreciable difference to people on Merseyside, who could have better bus networks and stations; various environmental improvements to soften the effects of transport congestion at the tunnels; and park-and-ride schemes. They could have a range of things once money is available from the transport plan. At the moment, however, there is no guarantee that there will be any further income coming their way.
	To conclude, the Bill solves the long-standing problem of unpredictable finances. Even its opponents must accept that it offers potential benefits. It is thoroughly in line with integrated transport and modern thinking. Importantly, it is subject to appropriate safeguards. If I am wrong, and if the MPTA ends up as the haunt of slavering Trots or anoraks, the only way it can damage the motorists of Merseyside is to go to the Minister and ask whether it can do so, as ultimately he has control over whether it can raise charges above the retail prices index. I hope that all Labour Members would trust the Minister to make a sensible and reasonable decision in that respect. They should be assured by the fact that he is nodding and agreeing that the safeguard will be in place when the legislation goes through.

David Jamieson: indicated dissent

John Pugh: Given that the measure is so thoroughly in line with Government thinking, the mystery is why the Government have not thrown their weight behind it—why it is a private Bill and not a Government Bill. After all, as I said earlier, if they want a national integrated transport scheme, they must support local integrated schemes as well. The tragedy may be that if the Bill falls tonight, it will be the Government's fault. In a sense, it will be the Government's tragedy, because a slice of their own national integrated transport plan will not be accomplished.

Ben Chapman: I differ on a number of points from the Bill's sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but I recognise the sincerity with which she holds her views and the commitment with which she has pursued these ends. I wanted to begin with that introduction.
	Before I go on to the main body of my speech, I shall address some of the particulars of the points that my hon. Friend made. She referred to the benefits that might flow to the Wirral. There may have been a suggestion that there was a quid pro quo—that the Wirral was looking to get benefits out of the measure that would not otherwise have come its way. However, the projects that are mentioned are in the transport plan and would have come to the Wirral anyway.
	It is not, let me stress, a matter of us and them. I do not object to the Bill because it disadvantages the Wirral or favours other parts of Merseyside. I take a different view from the sponsor of the Bill in that I object to the principle.

Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend admit that there is at least one group of people in the Wirral—my constituents who live in those 200 houses next to the Wallasey tunnel—who will not get the benefits unless the Bill or something like it closes the loophole in the law which currently makes it illegal for them to get their soundproofing, just at a time when the ro-ro which is likely to open soon will increase the weight of heavy traffic through the tunnel and make their plight even worse? They have been waiting for 30 years.

Ben Chapman: I intended to deal with that point. Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Those provisions of the Bill have my wholehearted support. I fear that there are not many others that do.

Peter Kilfoyle: If my hon. Friend accepts that there are provisions in the Bill that will benefit people—notwithstanding any debate about the projected rises in the tunnel fees—if the Bill is talked out tonight, will there not be a grave danger of our throwing the baby out with the bath water? The Bill is part of an integrated transport plan for the whole of Merseyside. Does my hon. Friend accept that many aspects of the plan would be contingent on those increases, and presumably a diminution in the amount of money taken out of the precept in order to support the tunnels as they are?

Ben Chapman: By definition, because of the ADAC report and the comments about the £2.5 million a year for safety improvements in the first four years at least of the Bill being in force, if such a thing were ever to happen, the money could not be spent on the projects that have been outlined. In any case, those are not contingent on the Bill; they are part of the local transport plan.
	I return to my point that there is no quid pro quo. The concerns of the people who oppose the Bill relate to the effects on Merseyside as a whole, not on the individual components of Merseyside. We are not saying that one part suffers more than another, or that one part gains more than another, but that the Bill—in my view, at least—damages the whole of Merseyside, or has the potential to do so.
	As it was mentioned in the opening remarks, I shall touch on the fabled 10p increase that is always spoken about—only 10p, we are told, every three years. So it may be while inflation continues at its present level, but even with the present Chancellor and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, global economic circumstances change, interest rates may not be at their present level for ever, and there is a potential, as I shall demonstrate later, for the increases to be very much larger than the mythical 10p that is often quoted.
	It was said that the consultation was effective and in accordance with Government guidelines and God knows what else, but in my view at least, the consultation was inadequate. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said, it did not include him. He was not consulted about the matter, nor were other Members of Parliament who have an interest in the tunnels but who are not Merseyside Members. It did not include, for example, the Federation of Small Businesses, which has 6,000 members on Merseyside. It did not include a great many people.

Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the great offences in respect of the previous Bill—he may agree that it has been rolled over to this Bill—was that nobody was consulted about it? It came out of the blue to most hon. Members and merely appeared on the Floor of the House. Representations were made about that, and does my hon. Friend recall that between the appearance of that Bill and the introduction of the Bill before us, it was suggested that there should be a Merseyside forum—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's interventions are getting longer as the debate progresses. He must remember that there is distinction between an intervention and a speech. If he is hoping to catch my eye later, he might like to avoid spending too much time on interventions.

Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Does my hon. Friend not recall that a forum was promised—I think that he was mooted as its chairman—but never came into being?

Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend made two points. He said that the Bill that was formerly proposed to deal with Mersey tunnels has, to some extent, merged into this one. I think that that is true, although the difference is that the former Bill was a de facto privatisation measure. At least this Bill drops that suggestion entirely. Of course, that is very welcome.
	I should like now to move on to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. It was suggested that the MPTA was merely a vehicle for carrying out Government policy in all that it did, and that all that was proposed in the Bill was in accordance with Government policy. I take some issue with that suggestion, but I shall deal with it later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby also said that the petition carried only 251 signatures. That is often said, and I should like to lay that theory to rest, as it was me who presented the petition to the House. There were petitions, e-mails and filled-in forms cut out from the newspapers. A variety of signatures were collected in the streets and at railway stations by people who saw the iniquity of what was proposed. The urgency of submitting the petition and the fact that House of Commons petition procedure meant that some petitions were not regarded as appropriate ensured that the number of signatures handed in was less than the 2,000 figure that was roundly proclaimed. However, the fact of the matter was that there were many more than 2,000 signatures. Let that not be doubted. Equally, let it not be doubted that, if we had allowed the petitioning to continue, the number would have been in multiples of 2,000. Let there be no doubt that the bulk of the people of Merseyside, given the opportunity, oppose the measure. There is no question about that, so let us not get carried away with talking about 251 signatures. It is simply not so.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: It is, actually.

Ben Chapman: I say again that it is not the case. I was the hon. Member who submitted the petition and I can tell the House that there were many more than 2,000 signatures. That is the fact of the matter.

Robert Wareing: Would it not be very interesting to know how many individual constituents have written to hon. Members suggesting that they support an increase in the tolls and are in favour of the Bill?

Ben Chapman: It would indeed be interesting to have those figures. I can give the figures for my constituency, but I fear that I cannot speak for other Members. To be fair, I received one letter saying that it was a good idea to increase the tunnel charges. I think that it was from an employee of Merseytravel, but I am sure that it was a neutrally made point, for all that.

Peter Kilfoyle: May I enlighten my hon. Friend in another sense? I have not had a single letter against the proposed changes to the tunnel fees, but if it will help him, I will, as his constituent, write to him and let him know that I do not object—I want the fees to go up.

Ben Chapman: Some points were made about the affluent shires, and I shall deal with those later on.
	The Bill is promoted by the Merseyside passenger transport authority, about which I shall have more to say. I also want to deal with the generic issue of passenger transport authorities, which is relevant not only because the powers in the Bill are unique in the context of a private Bill, but because my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby dealt with the issue of the PTA generically as well as particularly.
	I want to deal with the history of the tunnels and of their financing, together with the nature, role and powers of the PTA, because that is crucial in setting the Bill in context. I shall also discuss other forms of transport on Merseyside, since one of the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill is that it will move people on to other forms of transport. I need to deal with that in terms of the other forms of transport in Wirral, South, because that is the area of which I have the closest experience. I shall also talk about the orientation of the Wirral, because it is relevant to what the Bill would do to the whole of Merseyside.
	The Bill relates to the Mersey tunnels, which comprise the road tunnel between Liverpool and Birkenhead—the Queensway tunnel, also known as the Birkenhead tunnel—and the two road tunnels between Liverpool and Wallasey called the Kingsway tunnel, but also known, unsurprisingly, as the Wallasey tunnel. The Queensway tunnel was completed in 1934 and the Kingsway tunnel was completed in 1974. I mention those dates because they are relevant to the financial issues.
	Although the Wirral is clearly and demonstrably part of Merseyside in local government terms, its allegiances and economic linkages vary. Some people hark back nostalgically to the time when it was part of Cheshire, which in a physical sense it still is. Rightly or wrongly, and although it was more a matter of form than substance, many very much welcomed the change to the postcode some years ago that meant that it began with "CH", not "L". That did not mean that services improved; if anything, they deteriorated. However, people in some parts of the Wirral are comforted simply by having "CH" as part of the postcode.
	Economic links matter not only with Cheshire and Chester, although people go to Chester for shopping, the races and work in the business park and firms such as MBNA. People also work in north Wales, not least at Airbus. The Deeside economy is unitary in many respects. Our links with Ireland are historic and remain strong. King Billy sailed to Ireland from the Wirral. People remember cattle from Ireland coming into the lairage at Birkenhead. The new roll on/roll off ferry service will further strengthen our links with Ireland. We have connections with Ellesmere Port, where people work at, for example, Vauxhall. We also have links with Halton, where people work in the chemical industry.
	However, our cultural and leisure links are overwhelmingly with Liverpool and the rest of Merseyside. For both sides of the Mersey, the tunnel is a vital artery and a daily lifeline. Unnecessarily increasing the charges for using the tunnels is deeply damaging and divisive. The Wirral and the rest of Merseyside have been connected throughout history, but it was in the first part of the 20th century that Liverpool traders, ship owners, brokers, merchants and business people started to move across the Mersey to live in the Wirral and enjoy what were viewed as its bucolic pleasures. The relationship is almost umbilical.
	In 1922, Sir Archibald Salvidge tabled a motion in Liverpool city council to inquire into and report on the feasibility of a tunnel or a bridge to improve traffic facilities across the Mersey. The engineers' report emphatically supported a tunnel. They pointed out that although a high-level bridge would add to the appearance of the port and river, it would be a susceptible target in the event of war. If subject to a direct hit, it could lead to the closure of the port of Liverpool. A bridge would be impossible to guard. That was wise counsel in view of the bombing of Liverpool in the second world war. Furthermore, the cost of continuous painting and maintenance of a bridge was viewed as astronomical.
	It was therefore reported that a road tunnel would cost less to construct and offer considerable economy in maintenance. On 8 August 1925, a private Bill that authorised the project and established the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee received Royal Assent. On 16 December 1925, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal switched on the power to the pneumatic drills and formally inaugurated an undertaking without parallel in engineering history.
	The tunnels are part of our psyche on Merseyside. King George V opened the Queensway tunnel on 18 July 1934. It cost £8 million to construct in eight years and eight months. It ranked financially as the biggest municipal enterprise ever undertaken in the country. As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, people remember walking through the tunnel on its opening in 1934.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend has been speaking for 20 minutes but he has reached only the 1930s. Will he give us an idea of the likely proportions of the rest of his speech so that we can pace ourselves?

Ben Chapman: It is important to set this issue in its historical context, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall move on relatively quickly—

Stephen Pound: To the 1960s.

Ben Chapman: Yes, to modern times.
	The people walking through the tunnel in 1934 did so secure in the knowledge that, in the fulness of time, the debt would be paid off and the tunnels would belong to them.

Robert Wareing: As a matter of interest, my hon. Friend might like to know that I am now the only hon. Member in the House to have walked through the tunnel in 1934, my father having paid a small amount of money to local charities.

Ben Chapman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the sense of well-being that he felt in the knowledge that, one day, the tunnels would belong to him, to his family and to the rest of the people of Merseyside.
	I hesitate to cover all the details that I have before me, but they are relevant. One million bolts tightened the iron lining of the tunnel, and some 140 miles of joints were caulked. Some of the rubble was used to build the nearby Otterspool promenade, which was part of a scheme to reclaim the land along parts of the foreshore of Liverpool and the River Mersey. I make that point because it reinforces the fact that the two sides of the Mersey are wholly interdependent.
	The main tunnel is 40 ft in diameter and carries four lanes of traffic for more than two miles between Liverpool and Birkenhead. The fact that it is only two miles long is relevant, too.

George Howarth: Why?

Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend asks why. There are two branches of tunnels. The Birkenhead dock branch, which at one time carried traffic to and from the Birkenhead dock estate, is now closed. The Liverpool dock branch is still in operation for exit traffic into the docks area.
	I was going to deal with some of the environmental aspects of the project, but in the light of the haste that people are urging on me, I shall move forward to the 1950s.

Peter Kilfoyle: I do not want to upstage my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), but he may not be aware of how the tunnel was used by young scallywag kids in the 1950s to access the coastal resorts of the Wirral, by jumping on the backs of wagons, which were very slow-moving in those days.

George Howarth: You're too big for that now, Peter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ben Chapman: During the 1950s, because of the post-war boom in motoring and the expansion of local industry, the need for a second crossing became evident. Detailed studies of cross-river traffic and the flows thereof provided definitive evidence of the need for an additional crossing. The arguments about the form that that crossing should take followed the earlier lines of argument. I shall spare the House the explanation of that, but the matter was investigated at great length and the same conclusion was arrived at. There was to be a second tunnel, and, in 1965, Royal Assent was given for the reconstitution of the Mersey tunnel joint committee. In 1966, work commenced.
	The Kingsway tunnel, which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in June 1971, is a twin-tube tunnel. Each tube has two traffic lanes that are 12 ft wide—compared with the 9 ft width of the lanes in the Queensway tunnel—and slightly under two miles long. The Mersey tunnels are unlike any other estuarial crossing in the country, in that they are situated in the heart of a conurbation. Patronage of the tunnels is predominantly local, but not, of course, completely so. Recent surveys show, for example, that 82 per cent. of tunnel users are Merseyside residents and that the majority of journeys through the tunnels are work oriented.
	Current debt relates to the construction of the Wallasey tunnel, costing some £44 million, and the use of borrowing to finance the operating losses incurred between—

Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend explain that point? The outstanding debt for 2000–01 is £110 million. The first published figure of which I am aware is for 1968–69, when the outstanding debt was £17.1 million. How did the debt reach its high point of £140 million? That is well beyond the difference between income and expenditure.

Ben Chapman: Absolutely. If my hon. Friend permits me, I shall come to that in a moment.
	The use of borrowing to finance the £116 million operating losses incurred between 1968 and 1992 added to the original inherited debt. From my time as Department of Trade and Industry director on Merseyside, I recall that the debt was contributed to by shenanigans during the Militant years, but I have been unable to do the research to confirm or deny that proposition, which may be apocryphal. That was my understanding at the time, but it may not be correct.

Peter Kilfoyle: On that serious point, my hon. Friend refers to the Militant years, although I hope that I have misheard him. Of course, before the county council was abolished, it was responsible for the tunnel authority. As far as I am aware, the residuary body that took over the Mersey tunnels and the whole transport infrastructure was never, in any shape or form, infected or dominated by Militant Tendency or its influence.

Ben Chapman: That may be so, but what I have referred to was common currency when I worked in Merseyside. I accept my hon. Friend's point, however.
	Deficit funding by borrowing was authorised by legislation, but it continued for far longer than was envisaged and involved much greater amounts due to higher costs and less traffic than was anticipated. According to Merseytravel's website, and there can be no better authority, Merseytravel inherited the tunnels in 1986 with £100 million of debt and operating losses of £10 million per annum. Annual operating costs were £20 million and toll income £10 million.
	Tolls increased in 1986 and 1989—I hope that this addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—but total debt rose to £140 million before Merseytravel raised tolls again in 1992, from 60p to 100p for cars, and was able to balance operating costs and revenue. According to Merseytravel, toll income is £30.6 million and expenditure consists of £11 million operating costs, debt charges of £14 million and refurbishment costs of £5.6 million.
	The outstanding debt is, I understand, £106 million, which includes borrowing of £65 million raised in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s at relatively high interest rates. The balance of debt is pooled and it is being repaid with interest at variable rates.

Stephen Pound: Like many west London MPs, I have a passionate interest in seeing the Bill make progress, but I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the light at the end of this particular tunnel. Would it be presumptuous to suggest that my hon. Friend should produce a handsomely blocked booklet containing all these extraordinarily interestingly facts, although he should allow us to read it on another occasion? Might we proceed to the vote some time this decade?

Ben Chapman: I may take that suggestion up, or at least produce the bound volume for people to read after the event. All that I am saying is relevant to the position that we find ourselves in today, and it needs to be said in this debate here and now.
	The purpose of the Bill is to amend the statutory provisions relating to the levying and revision of tolls for the use of the tunnels, especially so that in future tolls are revised annually with reference to the rate of inflation. The second purpose is to remove the present requirement to reduce tolls once debts arising from construction and operation of the tunnels have been repaid. The third is to allow the authority to use surplus toll income to improve public transport in Merseyside, and the fourth is to allow the authority to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Kingsway tunnel approach on the Wirral. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), I can say without fear or favour that I have no problem with the fourth item relating to noise insulation in Wallasey.

George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the powers currently available to the passenger transport authority do not enable it to carry out such work?

Ben Chapman: I do, of course. I accept that legislation will probably be required for that purpose. However, I do not accept what I regard as pernicious provisions, which outweigh the benefit of the fourth item.

Peter Kilfoyle: Will my hon. Friend tell us why he is trying to destroy the Bill, rather than to amend it?

Ben Chapman: I am not trying to destroy anything. I am putting the arguments that I believe should be made. I have made a valid point. I approve of one aspect of the Bill, but not the others. That needs to be said.

George Howarth: I am interested to hear that. Given my hon. Friend's stated position, would not the logical course of action be to allow the Bill to receive a Second Reading and to try to make suitable amendments during the Committee stage?

Ben Chapman: That course may need to be followed, but all I am trying to do on Second Reading is to put the arguments that I feel are relevant to the case. That is what I want to do.

George Howarth: I am trying my best to follow the logic of my hon. Friend's argument. As I understand it—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—his position is that the Bill has some good aspects and some less good. If so, is not the logical course of action to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading tonight, and to raise those concerns in the form of amendments or in points that he can make in Committee?

Ben Chapman: I may be reacting rather hastily to my hon. Friend's comments, as I know that he means well and is trying to be helpful, but the fact is that I approve of only one item in the Bill. It is not a matter of trying to destroy or to save the Bill. I am merely pointing out that I have a distinct objection to three provisions of the Bill, but not to the fourth. I am engaging in the debate on the provisions of the Bill as a whole.
	As the proponents of the Bill point out, the financial stability of the tunnels depends on the tolls collected from people using them. That is apparent, and I agree up to a point. They also argue that the tunnels' financial stability cannot be guaranteed in the longer term, and I agree with that. It is to some extent a matter of management. The tunnels need to be managed so as to ensure financial stability. The evidence does not suggest to me that that is happening at present. The proponents also say that further toll increases will be necessary in due course to ensure that the tunnels continue to break even. There is thus an admission that they are breaking even, and I have no hard evidence to suggest that they will not be able to continue to break even, given appropriate management.

Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend, unlike the proponents of the Bill, mentions management, which was dealt with specifically in the previous Bill. One of the reasons for that was that the tunnel had been mismanaged for years, an element with which the present Bill does not deal. Does he agree that if it did, it might receive a fairer wind from us?

Ben Chapman: Absolutely. I fear that, to some extent, there is something of a cop-out style of management involved in the tunnel.

Peter Kilfoyle: If it is a question of management, how would my hon. Friend manage the sound insulation that is desperately needed by those 200 houses at Wallasey?

Ben Chapman: There are ways of catering for that; this Bill is not the way to do it. I shall come on to that subject in greater length later, if I may.
	In any organisation, there is scope for efficiency improvements. The chairman of Merseytravel always challenges me to say what those might be. Frankly, it is the job of the chairman of Merseytravel to identify them. The MPTA has been reluctant to tackle management issues, but I would look at whether there was a need for 80 policemen for four miles of tunnel. It is no doubt apocryphal, but it is said that there are often more policemen in the tunnel than there are simultaneously in the rest of Liverpool.
	The passenger transport authority wanted to cop out of the management under the previous Bill, and proposed to sell a long-term concession to an organisation in the private sector to run the tunnels.

Stephen Hesford: Why does my hon. Friend think that that was the intention of Merseytravel at that time?

Ben Chapman: I cannot speak for Merseytravel but, in my view, it wants to get out of tackling the issues and to transfer its burden, just as the burden is being transferred now to a readily available increase in tunnel tolls, whether or not they are justified. These increases must be justified. Those involved must demonstrate their stewardship and their prudence in financial management. It must be demonstrated that there are consultation processes and checks and balances before there are toll increases.

Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend recall that a large part of the justification for the previous Bill—supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas)—was that it would provide best value in the running of the tunnels? The present Bill is silent on that issue.

Ben Chapman: That is entirely true. Perhaps we will hear from others as to why that is so.
	Such was the keenness of the MPTA to sell a long-term concession to run the tunnels to an organisation in the private sector, it was prepared virtually to privatise the tunnels, removing the fact that the tunnels hitherto had been operated by the people of Merseyside for the people of Merseyside in the public sector and for the advantage of the people of Merseyside. It may be that that mentality arises from an absence of management skills.
	If the authority has such skills, it is a random occurrence, because there is no requirement to that effect.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) said, to rid itself of its responsibilities, Merseytravel was even prepared to risk the imposition of VAT on tunnel charges by virtual privatisation. How much would that have cost the people of Merseyside and its economy? Moreover, given that, apparently, no Merseyside organisation could offer the services that the concessionaire required, it seemed likely that the operation would be run by a profit-making organisation from elsewhere. That would have involved siphoning off loads of money to another part of the United Kingdom, much to the detriment of the people of Merseyside.
	As I said, there is an element of copping out in the Bill.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, whom—as he probably realises—I normally hold in the highest regard. However, is it in order for him to make a Second Reading speech on a Bill that is not before us, rather than on the one that is?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to make a Second Reading speech about the Bill before us.

Ben Chapman: I was trying to point out that the attributes that characterised Merseytravel's attitude to the previous Bill are still apparent. Rather than justifying increases in tunnel tolls or accounting for its stewardship of our funds, it simply wants to have the money given to it on a plate without any justification, other than the fact that inflation has risen.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have considered my hon. Friend's comments about the 80 police officers who are employed to maintain safety and traffic throughput in the tunnel. I remind him that the tunnel operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. By my reckoning, that equates to 12 police officers on duty at any given time across what are in fact two tunnels: in other words, six officers per tunnel, with three on each side. I believe that six officers is the minimum necessary to attend to any major emergency that might occur. Does he disagree?

Ben Chapman: Up to a point, I do. Even to the layman, the figure of 80 policemen and women for a what is a very short stretch of tunnel merits examination, however it is presented. A crisis involving the fire service might arise, yet the Merseyside passenger transport authority employs no fire service personnel; it relies on the external fire service to provide for such emergencies. Why, therefore, does it need a separate force of 80 policemen and women in the tunnel? I am simply suggesting that that is a point for examination, were I to be tempted down that road.
	The authority wants increases to be granted to it on a plate. Moreover, as has been pointed out, it wants the ability to raise charges, where appropriate, by more than the rate of inflation. Given that the authority is unskilled as a tunnel operator—or, indeed, as much else—and given that it provides the equivalent role of a board of directors, I am not sure that this is right. A proper board of directors might reasonably include representatives of tunnel users and businesses on Merseyside, and people with expertise in transport, tunnels, finance, accountancy, the environment and management. However, I fear that, by and large, nominations to the authority are based on the principle of Buggins's turn.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the MPTA contains no representatives of tunnel users, but he will accept that a lot of tunnel users live on Merseyside. He will also accept that many MPTA members—in fact, all of them—are representatives of Merseyside people. In other words, the MPTA does include representatives of tunnel users.

Ben Chapman: By random process, that must be so.

George Howarth: I am listening to my hon. Friend with increasing incredulity. He has the privilege of speaking in the House by virtue of the fact that he is an elected representative of the people of Wirral, South. He appears to be saying that those local authority members who sit on the passenger transport authority, who are in their turn elected by the people of their wards, are in some way unfitted to sit on the authority. Is not that a case of pots calling kettles black?

Ben Chapman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I wish to analyse the role of the passenger transport authorities generically, and I shall come on to that point.

Stephen Hesford: Was not my hon. Friend's point that the MPTA seems to lack expertise in the running of that multi-million pound affair?

Ben Chapman: Indeed, and things might be done better if a board of directors had appropriate expertise on it. I am not impugning the motives of those on the MPTA, but I think that things could be done better. I asked questions about the qualifications of people assigned to PTAs or fire authorities or police authorities, and the response came that none are sought and none are particularly held.

George Howarth: I do not understand why my hon. Friend cannot accept the simple fact that the qualification of members of PTAs is the fact that they have been elected as local councillors in their own areas and that they, as individual members of the authority, have the confidence of those councils that have sent them to sit on that body. Surely that is just as much a qualification as my hon. Friend has for standing here and making his speech tonight.

Ben Chapman: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view. I am trying to describe a way in which the Mersey tunnels might be run more efficiently, and I am determined so to do. The organisation has 880 staff, 320 of whom work in tunnel operations. I am determined to examine whether the balance between administrators and deliverers is right. I have asked any number of people on Merseyside to guess the number of people involved in running the tunnel for Merseytravel and the tunnel police, and nobody has ever come near guessing the actual numbers.
	I have no doubt that the workers are dedicated, committed and hard-working. However, we need an effective management structure, and I am not sure that we have one. In questioning that, I am posing questions not only about the MPTA but about PTAs generically, and that is appropriate, especially as the point was originally raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. Operationally, Merseytravel is responsible for the tunnels and the ferries. Administrative matters such as timetables, pensioners' passes, bus subsidies and fast tags are not operational matters as such. If I were on the board of Merseytravel, I would want to examine the degree of overhead that was involved.
	The proponents of the Bill said that by increasing tolls at the rate of inflation, their proposals would be administratively simple. That may be true, but it would not necessarily make them justifiable. The Bill would give no right of appeal on inflationary increases either to the MPTA or to the Secretary of State. That is not right. At the moment, if Merseytravel wishes to increase the tunnel tolls and some groups object to that, a public inquiry process has to be followed. That gives people the opportunity to give evidence for and against the issue. The effect of the Bill would be to take away that right, so it is even more important that those groups that would be affected are given an opportunity to give their evidence before that right is taken away. That is something that Merseytravel has attempted to prevent, although it failed to do so at the Court of Referees.
	I do not think it right to use the RPI. Mr. Fleming, the Federation of Small Businesses representative at the Court of Referees, said that the move to raise prices in line with inflation sounds good, but that people have to remember that the normal rate of RPI is based on a basket of prices for products such as food and fuel, and so on. He said that an annual RPI of 5 per cent. does not apply to the Mersey tunnel or to public utilities, because they do not eat food and or use fuel. In a nutshell, Mr. Fleming said that Merseytravel was not just trying to balance the books, but that it was trying to create cash using the RPI index proposal.
	The proponents of the Bill say that the proposal will make revenue forecasting easier, but I am not so sure. When Mersey tunnel price increases have been pursued through the public inquiry process, they have always been granted. If a case is justifiable, there is no reason why it should not be granted.
	The proponents say that an increase in tunnel tolls would increase use of other transport, as if people drove back and forth through the tunnels for fun. I have discovered today that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) does just that.

Robert Wareing: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if Merseytravel had not introduced a Bill in November 1999 but had applied instead for a toll increase, that proposal would have completed the public inquiry stage already? That original Bill, incidentally, contained an element of privatisation. By now, a small toll increase would have been secured. Instead, Merseyside's council tax payers have had to fund parliamentary advisers, public relations people and others to draft this Bill, and its predecessor.

Ben Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	The Bill's proponents postulate that raising the tolls would increase the use of other transport, but I doubt that other forms of transport are up to the job. I have a mental picture of people sitting at home on spare afternoons and choosing to go for a drive through the tunnel. I fear that people do not do that—although the hon. Member for Southport is an exception. The scenario is unlikely. People go through the tunnel because they have to.
	The local train and bus services are no great shakes. My mailbag is full of complaints. I shall say more about that later, as I shall about the ferries. The alternative to the tunnels is the Runcorn bridge, but that involves a round trip of nearly 50 miles. The bridge is massively congested, and the Halton authority is seeking an additional Mersey crossing to alleviate the burden.
	It is worth noting that the authority that supposedly manages, operates and maintains the tunnels levies tolls, from which the income is used to defray operational costs and the expenses involved in paying off the principal of moneys borrowed to finance the construction and operation of the tunnels. The authority also makes payments to maintain a reserve fund in respect of the tunnels. That seems to me to be exactly appropriate: money raised from the tunnels should be used for the tunnels, without any element of cross-subsidisation.
	If other transport services are needed, they must be justified, by and large, on their own account. I believe that cross-subsidisation ultimately leads to uneconomic or unjustified services—

George Howarth: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's logic. He seems happy with cross-subsidisation when it means that my constituents subsidise those who travel through the tunnel, but he objects to it when it works in the opposite direction.

Ben Chapman: I do not accept that, as I shall explain shortly.

Stephen Hesford: Will my hon. Friend reflect on why the burden was devolved to the five local authorities? It was because the previous Conservative Government refused to allow Merseytravel's predecessor to raise the money in the way that it wanted, so it was forced to raise the precept?

Ben Chapman: Absolutely.
	The measure proposes a form of hypothecation that is entirely without precedent in private Bill provision. I am not against hypothecation in all circumstances but it needs to be tightly defined—there must be horses for courses. In any case, it appears from the MPTA's pronouncements that the matter will be dropped for a few years while the safety measures are implemented.
	There is provision in other funding mechanisms for transport schemes. Have steps been taken to examine those sources? Cities in other parts of the north-west have managed to create substantial projects without recourse to a private Bill such as this one. They do not have the same problems as Merseyside, but they do not receive objective 1 funding. Merseyside has that advantage although it has disadvantages. Why does an area with recourse to objective 1 funding need a Bill such as this? Is it another cop-out? Is there a lack of the financial engineering that is needed to put together projects that involve a multiplicity of funding schemes—matching contributions and so on? Perhaps the proponents could specify what has been done to find sources other than the mechanism that we are discussing?
	Who will benefit from the proposals? I agree that transport on Merseyside is not merely of concern to the local area; there is massive interdependence.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am deeply concerned about some of my hon. Friend's comments. He has implied that the management structure of Merseytravel is excessive and that its reduction would lower the costs of the organisation. He has inferred that the tunnel is overstaffed in terms of the number of police and, I guess, operators. Do I rightly understand that his principal objection is that the tunnel infrastructure is overstaffed and that his solution to that problem is to cut jobs—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is rather lengthy.

Ben Chapman: I am saying that before we agree to a proposal for a cash increase for the MPTA for toll increases without let or hindrance we need to be sure that we are getting value for money.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: It is about cutting jobs then.

Ben Chapman: I realise that the tunnel workers and the police are working hard and make a considerable contribution. All I am suggesting is that there may be a need—I put it no stronger than that—to examine the overheads. If they are as they should be, everything will be right and proper.
	One side of the Mersey depends on the other; there is a mutuality of interests. Those who advocate that only the users of the tunnel should pick up the tab need to understand that. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Stephen Hesford: Is not the giveaway the fact that the previous Bill would have privatised the management? It was recognised that there was a problem. The previous Bill addressed it, but this one does not.

Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
	All Merseyside can benefit from, or be detrimentally affected by, the tunnels. It is not true that those who are closest to them benefit more and those who are furthest away benefit less. Many organisations are Mersey wide and not just based on the Wirral or elsewhere in Merseyside. That is how it is. Wirral is part of the Mersey partnership, and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and hosts of other organisations have interests on both sides of the Mersey. The recent inaugural sailing of a roll on/roll off ferry from Twelve quays to Ireland shows how the weighting of the mutuality of interest has increased on the Birkenhead side. However, a considerable flow of commercial traffic goes through the tunnels between the docks, and that traffic takes goods to Knowsley, Southport and Crosby. They all benefit from the use of the tunnels.

Robert Wareing: Cancer patients on Merseyside—whether they live on the Wirral, Merseyside or in Southport—often have to make their way to Clatterbridge hospital on the Wirral for radiotherapy treatment. How do the Bill's supporters think that such people get across the river? Do they swim across? I suggest that they go through the tunnels. Does my hon. Friend realise that, in 2001-02, the ambulance service on Merseyside—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his intervention to a close.

Robert Wareing: Does my hon. Friend realise that the ambulance service spent £43,200 on tolls even for emergency ambulances?

Ben Chapman: I was about to come to that. A preponderance of traffic may begin on the Wirral, but it goes to work in Liverpool and in other parts of Merseyside. It is a matter of mutual benefit, with the balance of advantage going to Liverpool and other parts of Merseyside rather than the Wirral. Every delivery from a store in Liverpool that is dispatched to the Wirral makes a contribution to the Liverpool economy. People go from the Wirral to work and invest in Liverpool; and many organisations benefit the people of Merseyside and not just the areas close to the tunnel.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend have any idea of when, as a result of the Bill, additional money would be released to support other public transport initiatives in Merseyside, and when those sums would be made available?

Ben Chapman: As I understand it, the proposal is that, for the first four or five years, the extra money that might accrue from the Bill would go to fund health and safety mechanisms in the tunnels rather than to other projects. I hope that covers my hon. Friend's point.
	People from the Wirral who travel to leisure facilities and to football matches contribute massively to the Liverpool and wider Merseyside economy. People travel through the tunnels from all parts of Merseyside and beyond. People from Southport may go to north Wales, and people from north Wales may go to the philharmonic. Lorries and commercial vehicles do business in one way or another all the time. The tunnels are a hive of activity and an essential one.

Alan Simpson: I grew up on Merseyside, and I am well aware of the promise made to the people of Merseyside that the tunnels were a gift to us all and that, when the debts were paid off, the tolls would be reduced or removed. Will my hon. Friend spell out whether the economics of the tunnels depend on the Bill, or will the Bill turn the tunnels into a milch cow that will finance other transport initiatives and break the promise to the people of Liverpool?

Ben Chapman: The Bill does indeed establish the tunnels as a milch cow. It specifically and explicitly breaks the promise to the people of Merseyside.
	Those who work or live far from the tunnel entrances might think that they are not affected by them or do not benefit as much from them, but they are wrong. Travel-to-work areas are extensive and interlinked, and it is not always the case that those people are affected to a lesser extent. Some 40,000 people use the tunnels regularly. There are 80,000 vehicle movements a day through the tunnels, which amounts to 25 million—perhaps 35 million—vehicle movements a year. Those journeys affect all the people of Merseyside.
	The Bill would allow the authority to use tolls to provide public transport facilities in the county of Merseyside in such a manner and for such purposes as it thinks fit. That goes a wee bit too far. The Bill proposes to give the Merseyside PTA an entirely free hand in financial matters and to use moneys raised for such purposes as it thinks fit. Would that include items such as the refurbishment of the chairman's office, recently refurbished at a cost of £24,000 when the location of the headquarters was in question? The facelift features include trendy light wood and glass, cabinets with subdued spotlights that highlight the chairman's Everton memorabilia on glass shelves built into a wooden wall-mounted unit, a matching light-wood conference table—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot understand the relevance of that to the Bill.

Ben Chapman: I am trying to explain that if we give an entirely free hand, we need to know how the money will be spent.
	The authority claims to have spent £100,000 on promoting the Bill. I would wager that it has spent substantially more than that, perhaps even multiples of it, and it covers only the direct costs. Does that sum include the fees for lawyers and, perhaps, barristers, public relations companies, a public affairs consultant and parliamentary agents? Does it include all the opportunity costs of management time that was spent on developing and promoting the Bill, which is largely unwanted on Merseyside?

George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that at least some part of the expenditure will have been incurred as a result of his opposition to the Bill?

Ben Chapman: It would be something if that were so, but judging by the amount of literature that I have received from various sources within Merseytravel, it is evident that phenomenal sums have been spent, with or without my efforts. Do the figures include travel and subsistence costs?

Alan Simpson: In respect of the balance sheet, and before my hon. Friend pleads guilty to sole responsibility for opposing the Bill, does he accept that there is another side to the £500,000 or so that has probably been spent on promoting it? Does he acknowledge that he may have to share the credit for opposing the Bill with the North West Trades Union Congress, a collection of Labour MPs, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Mersey tunnels shop stewards committee, the Merseyside TUC, the Wirral TUC, the local Daily Post and Liverpool Echo, and a huge number of people on Merseyside? The confederation of local authorities may not be in tune with the confederation of local people.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that interventions must be brief?

Ben Chapman: None the less, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend made a valid point, and I am grateful to him. Those are honourable bodies which believe in the opposition that they have stated.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend referred to the £100,000 used to fund the Bill, but he did not refer to the likely £500,000 cost of a public inquiry if the Bill does not get through. I regard this as investment today to save money tomorrow. How does he regard it?

Ben Chapman: Frankly, I think that Merseytravel has to justify its proposed toll increases, and people need to be able to raise objections to them. We should not, whatever the circumstances, give Merseytravel carte blanche to raise its tolls with no justification besides the fact that the cost of living has risen. Toll increases would have a massively detrimental effect on the Merseyside economy, notwithstanding the points that were made earlier.
	Merseytravel is, after all, the organisation that reportedly sent 20 people to an entirely abortive hearing at the Court of Referees. Apparently, it failed to foresee the need for safety measures, despite the fact that safety ought to be its first priority. It is now saying that it needs £14.2 million, and it will use the Bill to raise that money. Do we really think that we should give that organisation rights that are, in terms of private Bills, unprecedented when questions are posed about it?
	It has been argued that the £14.2 million is the reason for Merseytravel's pursuit of the Bill, but in my view that is a red herring. It is not as though the ADAC report was unanticipated; it is not as though provision for health and safety had not been made. It is not as though the report's recommendations were mandatory or set in a time frame. It is not as though the tunnels were worse than others. The Wallasey tunnel got a good grade; indeed, I think that it may have come out on top. Even the Birkenhead tunnel was regarded as acceptable. We are not talking about tunnels that are bottom of the table.
	Merseytravel, having said that it would strive for a public inquiry to raise the money, has apparently had second thoughts and suggested that safety might be a good argument for getting the Bill passed. It has been added to the arguments at a late stage. As I said, the safety argument cannot stand alongside the argument that the money will be used for other transport schemes on Merseyside, because it would prevent that.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) intervened a few moments ago—obviously, the Bill is of great concern to the people of Nottingham—and listed some of the opponents to the Bill.
	Is my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) aware of a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport dated 4 July, headed "Mersey Tunnels Bill" and signed by Dave Martin, the leader of Sefton council, Marie Rimmer, the leader of St. Helens council, Jim Keight, the leader of Knowsley council, Steve Foulkes, the leader of Wirral council and, last but by no means least, Joe Anderson, the leader of Liverpool Labour group? Does he think that they have suddenly dreamed up the idea of supporting the Bill, or does he think that they may be representing the communities that we are all sent here to represent?

Ben Chapman: Of course I am aware of that letter. I am also aware of the opponents to the Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). They include the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians, the North West Trade Union Congress, Amicus, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the Unison members who work in the tunnels rather than in the Merseytravel office.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend mentions the involvement of the AEEU. I am member of the AEEU. Is he sure that he is not confusing one branch of the AEEU with the entire union?

Ben Chapman: Yes, I am sure that I am not confusing one branch with the entire union. The Bill is opposed by Amicus-AEEU.

Alan Simpson: My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) referred to the interests of the people of Nottingham, South. May I point out that some of us are expatriate scousers by birth—

Stephen Pound: How can you be an expatriate by birth?

Alan Simpson: Sorry, I meant to say that some of us are scousers by birth and expatriate scousers by affliction.
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) accept that the interests of the people of Merseyside are not necessarily expressed by the leaders of the local authorities? Whatever weight he gives to those views, they ought to be set alongside the trade union resolution supported nationally by the TUC, which states:
	"local people, who work on the opposite side of the Mersey to which they live, already pay up to £780 per annum for a one-and-three-quarter mile each way journey. In an area of high unemployment and poverty those tolls"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind hon. Members that interventions must be brief.

Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend has covered the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), but he did not mention the fact that the Automobile Association, the Freight Transport Association and many others also object to the Bill.
	Let me list the current scale of tolls, because it is worth considering the effect of the Bill's proposals in that light. A charge of £1.20 each way applies to motor cycles with sidecars; three-wheeled vehicles; private or light goods vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for fewer than nine persons. The £2.40 each way charge applies to private or light goods vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with trailer; heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with two axles; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for nine or more persons, with three axles. The £3.60 each way charge applies to heavy goods vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with three axles; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for nine or more persons, with three axles. The £4.80 charge applies to heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with four or more axles.
	Thus an ordinary motorist in an ordinary car going through the tunnel once each way pays toll charges of £2.40 a day; that is £12 a week, or £600 a year. That strikes me as quite enough to take out of an ordinary person's pocket simply to get to work, or to get to hospital for cancer treatment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said. The fellow with a sidecar, who pays a similar sum, is similarly taxed. For a goods vehicle of 3.5 tonnes with four or more axles, the daily cost of a single return journey is £9.60 but, for argument's sake, let us say that the same lorry from George Henry Lee goes back and forth four or five times day, making the cost £12,000 per annum. If that calculation is applied to all the lorries going through the tunnel, all the people travelling on business from factory to warehouse, from dock to dock, from shop to wholesaler, and from builder to building site, it can be seen that the proposed increases will have a massive effect on the Merseyside economy, which will not be experienced by the economies of other sub-regions which compete with Merseyside.

Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the main dock for exporting goods to Northern Ireland is in Birkenhead? For all those companies that export goods from Liverpool to Northern Ireland or southern Ireland, there will be an inevitable additional cost for moving their goods through the tunnel to the port for export. What estimate has been made of the additional costs of an inflation-led increase in charges on the Merseyside economy?

Ben Chapman: I fear that I cannot provide a figure, but it would be substantial. As I said, the effect is unique to Merseyside. The passenger transport authority has proposed an increase of 10p every three years, but that may not necessarily be the case. The inflation rate in 1980 was 18 per cent.; in 1981, 11.9 per cent.; in 1982, 8.6 per cent.; in 1983, 4.6 per cent.; in 1984, 5 per cent; in 1985, 6.1 per cent.; in 1986, 3.4 per cent.; in 1987, 4.2 per cent.; in 1988, 4.9 per cent.; in 1989, 7.8 per cent.; in 1990, 9.5 per cent.; in 1991, 5.9 per cent.; in 1992, 3.7 per cent.; in 1993, 1.6 per cent; in 1994, 2.4 per cent.; in 1995, 3.5 per cent.; in 1996, 2.4 per cent.; in 1997, 3.1 per cent.; in 1998, 3.4 per cent.; in 1999, 1.5 per cent.; in 2000, 3 per cent.; and in 2001, 1.8 per cent.
	If we took the years 1989 to 1991 and applied the authority's three-year yardstick, the increase would be 29p, not 10p as projected. The increases would therefore have a massive effect. The projected charges apply to the lowest common denominator—the ordinary vehicle. If they are applied to lorries, the overall increase is much greater. The rise is not necessary, as it does not result from increased operational costs. Charges will certainly not be reduced because of increased operational efficiency. Charges are not determined by a formula, which could provide for negative inflation; increases are made simply because the cost of living has gone up. However, if that is the case, people do not want to pay unnecessary charges. Life is tough enough. We are already taking £600 from the motorist's pocket, so we should give the people who use the tunnels a break and operate the tunnels efficiently. Let us use the revenue raised from the tunnels for the benefit of their users and the Merseyside economy, not for other purposes for which there are alternative sources of funding.

Alan Simpson: If the House agreed to the shift from a cost-based increase in charges to an inflation-based increase in charges, and if there were a war in the middle east later this year that resulted in a dramatic increase in oil prices, would not the charge increases applied to people on Merseyside be based on the increase in petrol charges, as well as on an increase in tunnel charges arising not from costs but from external factors unrelated to the tunnel? If so, how on earth would my hon. Friend justify it?

Ben Chapman: That is entirely the case. We could be faced with massive increases that had nothing to do with the economy of Merseyside or the operation of the tunnels, but which were due to wholly external factors that could have a massively detrimental effect on the Merseyside economy through the provisions of the Bill. It is not a free lunch. One cannot impose increases on the nod; one must justify them. What is proposed is simply a drive to profitability, and in no sense a drive to efficiency. It is about raising money from the tunnels to use for other purposes.
	That is not the end of the matter. According to the formula for index-linked rises, if the formula produces a sum that is neither a multiple of 10p nor an amount which, on division by 10, produces a remainder of 5p, it should be rounded to the nearest 10p; and if it is an amount which, on division by 10, produces a remainder of 5p, it should be increased by 5p. That is a balanced provision, but the fact remains that in some years, under just the basic provisions of the Bill, the rounding provisions could result in an automatic inflation-plus increase, quite apart from the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned.
	Matters get worse. It is also provided that
	"If at any time it is represented in writing to the Secretary of State by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority"—
	nobody else, just the Merseyside passenger transport authority—
	"that in the circumstances then existing or in prospect—
	(a) all or any of the tolls fixed by or by virtue of this Act should be increased by more than the increase authorised by subsection (6) of section 91 (Classification of vehicles, level and application of tolls) of this Act, or
	(b) any classification of traffic then in force for the purposes of the levying of tolls should be revised".
	In other words, in addition to the automatic increase and the possible rounding-up, and on the say-so of the MPTA alone, the Secretary of State may be asked to increase any of the tolls by more than the increase authorised in the basic provisions of the Act, or to revise the classification of traffic. The chap with the motorbike and sidecar could be paying a different category of charge to that which he is paying at present. The initiative lies purely with the Merseyside passenger transport authority. It is true that the final decision would be with the Secretary of State, but under the terms of the Bill nobody is allowed to ask for a reduction if operating costs go down.
	Before the Bill appeared in its present form, I went to see the MPTA, at its request, to discuss the Bill. I said that one might want to consider a formula-based inflation-minus proposal that had a built-in provision for independent reflection on what was proposed, or a proposal that contained constraints and checks to prevent the free-for-all that is proposed in the Bill, or one that had inputs by users, consultation and appeal mechanisms.
	I think that the authority must have failed to understand me. The response that it has given in the Bill is to the effect that it will reflect on the increases before applying them. That is the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas—it is not likely to happen. The Bill states:
	"On each occasion that an order is made under section 91 (Classification of vehicles, level and application of tolls) of this Act"—
	the County of Merseyside Act 1980—
	"the Authority shall consider, having regard to such matters of an economic or social nature within the county of Merseyside as the Authority considers to be relevant—
	(a) whether it is necessary or appropriate in relation to any or all classes of traffic to exercise its power in subsection (1)(c) above to reduce tolls or to continue to exercise that power (as the case may be); and
	(b) if the Authority considers that it is necessary or appropriate to do so, for how long tolls should be reduced or continue to be reduced."
	The authority is the promoter of the Bill. Why should it want to raise money for other projects by imposing unnecessary increases, but then say that it will not need the money after all? The provision makes absolutely no sense.

Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a huge difference between an agreement to reflect on the part of the authority and a concrete agreement with the people of Merseyside that once the costs of the tunnel are met, the charges for using it will be reduced? One of those positions is a concrete commitment, but the other is little more than a lick and a promise.

Ben Chapman: That is absolutely right, and as I said, it is contrary to the overall thrust and purpose of the Bill. As my hon. Friend says, it is unlikely that any such reduction will happen.
	Having run speedily through the provisions, I should like to explore some aspects in greater detail. Wirral people and others on Merseyside have to use the tunnels for both business and leisure purposes. They need to do so if they are going to work, whether in insurance, shipping, retail, banking, manufacturing or whatever. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a telling point about Clatterbridge centre for oncology, but even if people go to hospitals in the other direction, the same problems would apply. For example, the same would apply in respect of going to Alder Hey or to Liverpool Women's hospital. Although we have good hospitals on the Wirral, just as Liverpool has good hospitals, people need specialist treatment such as that provided by the centre for oncology, and they have to use the tunnels.
	For leisure purposes, whether Merseysiders want to go to nightclubs such as Cream, watch the blues and reds at Goodison and Anfield, listen to music, catch planes or ferries, listen to the opera, watch plays, as we have done, or visit or worship at either of the cathedrals, they need to go through the tunnels. There is no realistic choice. They use them for work, education and leisure.

Edward O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an alterative for my constituents if they want to go to Clatterbridge for treatment? The route is as follows: M57, A5300, Runcorn bridge, M56 and M53. That is far faster than being stuck in the centre of Liverpool or Birkenhead.

Ben Chapman: It is also far less environmentally friendly to travel all those miles only to find oneself on a congested Runcorn bridge halfway through the circuit.

Ian Stewart: It is a roundabout way.

Ben Chapman: It is as my hon. Friend says. So they go for education to Liverpool university and to John Moore's university, to work at Jaguar—

Andrew Miller: It is not a roundabout way. That is part of the importance of the debate about the sub-regional infrastructure. As it happens, my home is equidistant to the centre of Liverpool going by either route. There are merits in considering the regional infrastructure, not just the tunnels.

Edward O'Hara: It is my constituents' favourite route to Ellesmere Port as well.

Ben Chapman: People go through the tunnels to the many festivals on both sides of the river, to the Tate and to the splendours of national galleries and museums on Merseyside. They go, as colleagues and I are going to go, to eat in Chinatown and to see the Chinese arch. Then, the money stays on the Liverpool side of the river, as is right and proper. They might go to work in motor vehicle, timber or hi-tech industries. On the other hand, people go through the tunnel to the Wirral for country pursuits, to walk, to visit Port Sunlight, to visit the Williamson art gallery, to see the splendours of the estuary and to watch Tranmere Rovers. They go for bird-watching, to work on Deeside, to climb Moelfamau—for a whole variety of reasons. It is a continuing, permanent heavily flowing artery that is essential to the life of people on Merseyside. Of the tunnel traffic, about 40 per cent. originates in the Wirral, 17 per cent. originates in Liverpool, 15 to 20 per cent. originates in the rest of Merseyside and the balance is from elsewhere. The tunnels are an essential artery for all of us. For people on the Wirral, Liverpool is our sub-regional centre. We have to go there.
	The Bill is certain to lead to increasingly higher tolls being imposed on tunnel users, for the following reasons. Merseytravel has admitted that the last 20 per cent. increase to £1.20 each way, bad though it was, was less than the increase that would have occurred if the retail prices index trigger had been in place since 1992. Moreover, the Bill would provide for increases in excess of inflation. What utility is allowed to increase charges like that? It would think it fantastic were it permitted to do so. Normally the best that is offered is an inflation-minus figure, and that drives efficiency.
	This proposal would drive profitability. If, as is argued, the tunnels could be more efficient, the profits could be large. Where would they go, who would account for them, and how would they do so? The people of Merseyside would not experience the future reduction in tolls that they have been promised. Under current legislation, the tunnels' operating surpluses must be used to accelerate the repayment of debt, and once the debt is repaid tolls should be reduced to cover operating and maintenance costs. That promise would be broken were the Bill to become law. The aspirations of 1934 would be dead and gone and the public would feel cheated.

Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the proposals would do nothing to enhance economic development between Merseyside and Northern Ireland?

Ben Chapman: The proposals would be detrimental to the economic relations between Merseyside and Northern Ireland, especially because of the new ferry operation that is starting to develop from Birkenhead, which will be a new centre of trade and commerce between our two parts of the United Kingdom. If we were to accept the proposals in the Bill, those areas would be massively damaged by them.
	It is unfair to our constituents and their families to impose massive increases in tunnel tolls. As has been pointed out, it is not only the local economy that will be damaged and it is not only local jobs that will be put at risk by the effect on business. We are considering a second-by-second conduit of business and life. The tunnel is crucial to investment and business flow. We cannot afford to allow the toll to fund other schemes or cover inadequate provision for health and safety. Investment would not come to Merseyside—

Peter Kilfoyle: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 18.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 22.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time, and committed.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Eric Joyce: I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of genetically modified crops. As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Prime Minister have said recently, it is time for a rational and national debate around this subject and it is essential that that debate be informed by sound science and economics.
	For some time now, the tenor of public debate around the issue of GM crops has been of too high a pitch. That has led to a considerable degree of misperception in the public mind as regards levels of risk and potential benefit. That is not to say that people are wrong to be concerned about the health implications of a new food technology such as GM. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will confirm tonight that DEFRA's highest priority is to protect human health and the environment.
	Nor would I suggest that pressure groups of one kind or another are wrong to flag up what they perceive as potential problem areas; quite the reverse. Indeed, in preparing for this debate, I received an excellent brief from Greenpeace, for which I have great respect, even though it knows that I do not agree with the general thrust of its argument on the GM issue. It is essential that all sides of the GM argument are heard and that organisations such as Greenpeace play a key role in this matter.
	Most people would agree, however, that the best basis for debate is a foundation of reliable and generally agreed facts. Indeed, unless anything can be taken as axiomatic by all parties to a debate, the debate cannot really exist at all. Rather, the activity that ensues will simply represent a clash of world views yielding a similar effect to the playing of two CDs loudly at the same time.
	It is of course possible to come to a set of axioms in a number of ways; perhaps through reason or scientific observation, or perhaps even as a matter of faith. Yet however it is done, there is a need for all parties to obey the rules of the game—otherwise, there can be no game.
	It is especially worrying that a common means of laying down the parameters or assumptions contained within the debate—that is to say, empirical observation and broad scientific method—has played such a small part in the debate around GM to date. It is clear to me, for example, that the Food Standards Agency is unequivocal in regarding GM crops of the type presently being grown as part of the farm scale evaluations as safe for people to eat. The view has been arrived at through rigorously applied scientific method. It has also been arrived at in other countries. By the time of the beginning of the European moratorium on GM food production in 1998, 70 million acres had been cultivated in all sorts of trials without any substantive predicted or unpredicted hazard being discovered.
	Key elements of research have been published in peer-reviewed journals and the scientific orthodoxy is that GM crops such as those being trialled at present are safe. Of course scientists will usually regard any orthodoxy as contingent and there will always be those who propose counter-arguments, but that is part of scientific method itself; indeed, it is part of life itself.
	It seems to me that some interest groups have heretofore set about disrupting scientifically informed debate, rather than actually participating in it. For example, the farm scale evaluations presently under way, which will be completed next year, have been subject on occasion to official representatives of non-governmental organisations, dressed in wacky masks and white dungarees, using their size 10—and indeed size five—wellington boots to tramp down the trial crops. Participants in such activities doubtless claim that the evaluations' underpinning framework and assumptions are technically wrong. However, the greater impression conveyed by such people is that they wish to bypass scientific debate, and to use media spectaculars to distort public perception of risk. I am afraid that, at times, some interest groups have seemed more intent on spreading fear than on engaging in scientific debate. That has been a pity, to say the least.
	To begin redressing the consequence of interest groups' spinning and the sometimes one-sided media reportage, I want to emphasise some of the potentially great benefits of GM technology. GM crops offer the possibility of greatly increased crop yields, less waste and the use of fewer resources. That has fairly obvious environmental benefits, but it could offer entirely realistic scope for massive indigenous production in the developing world. Perhaps as many as 400 million people worldwide suffer from vitamin A deficiency, more often than not as a consequence of inadequate diet. Many such people are children, who will develop other health problems as a result. In theory, at least, GM could help dramatically through the development of a new type of rice, for example, which could deliver the daily level of required vitamins. Dr. Ingo Potrykus, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, in Zurich, has pioneered the genetic modification of rice using daffodils and a bacterium called erwinia uredovora. Dr. Dean Dellapena, of the university of Nevada, has produced an oilseed plant with high levels of vitamin E, which helps the immune system to fight disease. That is particularly relevant to those who suffer from poverty in the developing world.
	There is little dispute about the benefits that GM, if safe, could deliver for developing countries. It is perhaps for that reason that the interest groups that have so far dominated public discourse have tended to avoid this area. Instead, we have heard much about Frankenstein foods, and little to suggest that cross-pollination has been a natural and everyday reality in farming through the ages. We have heard little to remind us that the animals that non-vegetarians eat every day are the result of extensive cross-breeding through the ages. Nor has much been said of the fact that, to grow food conventionally in volume, we must kill competing vegetation, which involves using chemicals in great volume, too. We have also heard little to remind us of the "killer bees" phenomenon, whereby African and European bees were cross-bred conventionally to provide a higher honey yield. Instead, a highly aggressive species was produced that, according to some, has killed 1,000 people throughout the world.
	Indeed, a feature of the discourse to date is that, when apparent scientific evidence emerges that seems to back the case of the relevant interest groups, they have trumpeted it from the rooftops. One example is the now invalidated work of Dr. Arpád Pusztai. I say "invalidated", rather than anything stronger, because it is essential that the unorthodox be given a full hearing; otherwise, we would never experience the step-change advance of some of our greatest scientific triumphs. Equally, however, new evidence has to be evaluated in a balanced and peer-reviewed way, and put properly into context. Ironically, in so far as Dr. Pusztai challenged GM orthodoxy and failed, he helped to strengthen it.
	Last night, I debated this issue with Lord Melchett on the excellent programme entitled "Despatch Box". I understand that it may be under threat, and for the sake of intelligent political debate I hope that it is not. Lord Melchett is a world leader in anti-GM theory and practice, and much more besides. He is a leader in the field of organic produce and, by the way, is a former Labour Minister and a thoroughly charming man. Yet I could not help noticing that he selectively quoted parts of scientific research. Given that he famously trampled a field of GM crops that were under scientific test, I found that a little odd. In a way, his approach is reflected across the interest groups, which can reasonably be categorised—and are often self-categorised—as anti-GM.
	I suspect that, in truth, many anti-GM interests recognise that they are on a sticky wicket on the science front, and that that is why they often seem to avoid balanced debate on the evidence. I hope that such debate will ensue during, and following, the scientific and economic studies announced recently by the Secretary of State, about which the Minister may wish to say something.
	I also have an inkling that the objections of many anti-GM interests are in truth economic rather than that scientific in origin, but that the economic objections are less sexy and perhaps less sellable than the pseudo- scientific ones. A paper by Julian Morris of the Institute of Economic Affairs refers to a paper by the Centre for International Environmental Law in Washington DC, which puts two interesting arguments. They are exemplary arguments of their type. It is suggested that the profits of GM will not be shared with the people of developing countries. In essence, the benefit from GM technology will primarily accrue to mainly American multinationals, and that is given as a reason for objecting to it. The CIEL paper also suggested that GM technology could reduce food security in the developing world because
	"real food security problems are not caused by food shortages by poverty, inequity and the concentration of food production."
	To take the latter point first, the anti-GM lobby may have raised an issue of importance. I do not agree with the IEA paper which rejects that point out of hand, because I have seen at first hand how countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo can have great natural resources but people are simply too afraid to farm the land. GM crops would not solve that problem directly. It could only be solved by countries such as ours giving countries such as theirs assistance with security by means of regional security forces and so forth. Perhaps through the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD—we will arrive at that point.
	It is the former argument about who benefits economically that forms the bulwark of the anti-GM philosophy, but it remains obscure to most of the public, hidden behind nonsense about Frankenstein foods and other stunts. At one level, the argument may be refuted by appealing to the logic of global markets and arguing the case that liberal and democratic economies and countries will provide much of the solution to the problem of national underdevelopment in the developing world. Perhaps it is reasonable that that is not enough for the anti-GM lobby, since it has—it sometimes seems—a world view that is antipathetic to economic globalisation. That is its right, but although globalisation does not produce uniformly perfect outcomes, it is broadly a force for good. I disagree with the anti-GM lobby on that point, but I do not intend to press that case tonight.
	My objective tonight has been to highlight the fact that until now public discourse on the vastly important subject of genetic modification has been dangerously slanted. It is now time, in the months leading up to what may be a Government decision in 2004 on the future of GM crop production in this country, for the interest groups in the UK and in Europe to participate in a full and open debate, potentially to the great benefit of us all.

Michael Meacher: I found that speech refreshing listening, given that the debate has been rather hysterical and polarised. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) gave a balanced and thoughtful view, and I congratulate him. This is a contentious subject and the Government recognise that people have genuine concerns about GM crops. The Prime Minister confirmed that in his recent speech on science and technology, when he said:
	"In GM crops, I can find no serious evidence of health risks. But there are genuine and real concerns over biodiversity and gene transfer."
	We have heard some interesting points tonight from my hon. Friend and I would like to respond by trying to set out—to copy my hon. Friend, in what I hope will be a balanced and evenhanded manner—the action that the Government are taking in this area. First, the release and marketing of GM crops are governed by a statutory control regime agreed by the European Union. It is detailed and rigorous, and makes it clear that protecting human health and the environment is the overriding objective of public policy. That very much reflects the Government's own thinking—I emphasise this point—that if there is any unresolved doubt about the safety of a GM crop, we will not allow it to be grown.
	The Government played a leading role in negotiating a strengthened EU regime, which will come into effect in October. We have improved risk assessment procedures, as well as new provisions on public consultation and the monitoring of genetically modified organisms after they have been released.
	We are implementing the EU regime openly and transparently. Information on proposed GM crop releases and the associated risk assessments is made freely available. The minutes of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment are posted on our website, as are the locations of GM crop trials. We are ready at all times to consider views or evidence on the science relating to the safety of GM crops or public concerns in general.
	Further controls on the traceability and labelling of GMOs and on the approval of GM foods and animal feeds are currently under discussion in the European Union. We will continue to support controls that help to maintain safety and provide for informed consumer choice.
	I turn now to the farm-scale evaluations of GM herbicide-tolerant crops. As the House will know, the Government are sponsoring this research programme, and we have agreed with the industry that GM crops will not be commercialised in the UK before the results are considered. Commercialisation will happen only if they are found to pose no risk and cause no damage to the environment. The trials illustrate our precautionary and responsible approach to assessing the potential risks of this new technology.
	I have just announced the final round of farm-scale trials to be sown this autumn. The crop concerned is oilseed rape. As with previous rounds, we have written to parish councils with a trial in their area to explain the trials' purpose, and officials from the Department will attend parish council meetings if requested. I assure the House that I have always been anxious to ensure that local people know what is happening in their area, and why it is happening. I have also written to all hon. Members to provide background on the trials.
	A number of issues have been raised by hon. Members, and I shall turn to them now. Some hon. Members have complained about the distribution and selection of sites. The industry body, which is rather oddly titled the Supply Chain Initiative in Modified Agricultural Crops, identifies a pool of candidate farms. Researchers assess and select those that are suitable for participation. That is done in accordance with criteria established by the independent scientific steering committee overseeing the programme, which also approves the overall distribution of sites.
	Some hon. Members are worried about the disproportionate clustering of farm-scale evaluation sites, especially in Dorset. The distribution of the trial sites has to reflect the geographic range over which the particular crop is grown and the range of different management regimes for the crop in the UK. Having several sites in one area—whether it be the south-west or Lincolnshire—does not preclude that, provided that the sites taken overall are representative of the crop in question. The scientific steering committee for the programme is content that the overall distribution of sites is in line with the aims of the farm-scale evaluation research.
	I should make it clear that the purpose of the farm-scale trials is not to test the GM crop plants—a mistake that many people make—but the herbicides being used with them. To that extent, the scope of the trials is rather limited. The GM plants have already undergone a full safety evaluation as required under EU legislation. Contrary to what many people think, the trials are not about safety. ACRE said that the crops in the trials pose no greater risk to human health or the environment than their non-GM counterparts. We are allowing the trials to proceed only on that basis.
	One concern about the farm-scale evaluations is their potential impact on other farmers in the vicinity. Indeed, I think that is the issue that is raised most often. The Government recognise that the transfer of GM material might affect the economic interests of conventional and organic producers, so separation distances are being applied to the trials to ensure that any GM cross- pollination is kept to a very low level. For example, the distances relating to organic crops will ensure that cross-pollination is normally below 0.5 per cent.
	I am pleased to say that, to my knowledge, there has been no instance of a farm-scale trial affecting the status of a neighbouring conventional or organic crop. We are currently considering how GM and non-GM crops might co-exist in a commercial setting, although of course there is a huge difference between protecting conventional or organic farmers in respect of a limited number of trial sites and protecting them if full commercialisation were to take place.
	The first results from the farm scale trials will be published next summer. They will tell us what impact herbicide use with GM herbicide-tolerant crops has on farmland biodiversity, relative to the impact of equivalent conventional crops. We await that information; that is the purpose of the trials. If the results show that the GM crop herbicide regimes have a negative effect on the environment, we will use that information to impose restrictions or to block the commercial release of the GM crops. I want that to be clear.
	I shall take this opportunity to address some of the objections that have been raised from time to time about the GM field trials. The first relates to GM contamination and the demand made by some people that there should be zero GM contamination. However, we cannot avoid all GM cross-contamination. GM crops are widely grown in other countries—as my hon. Friend made clear—so GM traces may occur in imported material. It is also impossible to prevent cross-pollination between compatible crops and extremely difficult to test reliably for incidental GM presence at low levels. However, we realise that some people want the lowest possible GM presence and we shall bear that in mind as the policy is developed.
	Another issue that has frequently been raised is liability; it has certainly been raised in the House. EU proposals for an environmental liability regime are being considered. If adopted, they will provide liability rules for GM crops, covering damage to biodiversity and serious harm to human health. We are also considering the measures that might be needed to facilitate the co-existence of GM and non-GM production, recognising of course that GM crops may affect the economic interests of non-GM farmers.
	Another point that I wish to discuss—it has been raised in the media and in other ways—is the production of superweeds and the experience in Canada. Crop weeds in Canada have acquired multiple herbicide tolerance because different types of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape have been used. That is known as gene stacking, and it raises the concern that it might result in agronomic or environmental problems here. However, gene stacking cannot occur with the GM crops in line for possible use here, because they do not cross-pollinate each other. If it is proposed to release other crops that could result in gene-stacked weeds, I give the assurance that the risks will be fully evaluated before that is done.
	Two years ago, the Government established the independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on the social and ethical aspects of developments on this issue. That recognises that the issues raised by biotechnology and genetic engineering are not purely science based. The commission includes members from a range of backgrounds, including environmental and organic farming groups as well as from the biotech industry. It produced a major report last year on the farm-scale evaluation programme called "Crops on Trial"—I recommend it as reading to any hon. Member—that the Government accepted, including the recommendation for a GM public debate.
	We have confirmed that we will encourage a full and informed public debate on GM issues, including GM crops. Among other things, we expect the debate to address the current state of scientific knowledge on current issues, focusing on public concerns about the potential risks to human health or the environment from GM crops and food. We are also commissioning an economic assessment of the costs and benefits of GM crops, including their effect on conventional and organic farming.
	At present, we are considering detailed advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on how the debate should be conducted. It recommended several innovative ideas, including the use of citizens workshops to identify the issues for debate, and the production of a video film to illustrate the issues and stimulate discussion among local groups—for example, parish councils—and in specially convened focus groups. We genuinely want to stimulate public debate and we are considering all the options. There has never been a serious and thoughtful debate—it has been polarised—so we now want a much more rational and balanced debate, such as we are having tonight in the light of my hon. Friend's speech.
	We want the debate to start as soon as possible and an announcement will be made once the arrangements have been finalised. The debate will ensure that the Government are fully informed of the range of people's views before decisions are taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops. It is intended to demonstrate that we are responsive to people's concerns and are looking to maximise the opportunity for public views on all sides of the spectrum to be heard.
	Contrary to what is often suggested, the Government have an open mind on what we may offer. We are clear that the potential risks have to be fully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We have always proceeded on that basis. At the same time, however, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the potential for this technology to deliver benefits—as my hon. Friend suggested, it could be used in some circumstances in developing countries—if it is used wisely. That is an important consideration, given the considerable concerns. We believe that people should consider the issues carefully taking due account of sound science. That is what we intend to promote.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.